The Structural Transformation of Legal Interests in Digital Capital

Digital capital is a new form of capital that exists in digital form, formed through the accumulation and processing of data elements via digital technology, and invested in the digital economy to generate returns. Digital capital profoundly shapes the legal order; while creating value, it also brings potential problems such as imbalances in the distribution of data returns, the expansion of algorithmic power, and restrictions on individual personality development. Faced with the dual nature of digital capital, legislators worldwide have begun to explore forms of rights that transcend the traditional "dichotomy." The "right to data portability" and "right to an explanation of algorithms" created by China's Personal Information Protection Law, and the "gatekeeper" obligations established by the EU's Digital Markets Act, all attempt to embed personality rights protection mechanisms within the property rights framework. These institutional innovations mark the emergence of a "personality-property composite right": data is no longer simply classified as a thing or information, but as a synthesis of personality elements and property elements, requiring the law to establish a dynamic balancing protection paradigm to achieve a new structure of legal interests characterized by "algorithmic justice" and "digital symbiosis."

数字资本是以数字形式存在的，通过数字技术对数据要素进行累积和加工而形成的，投入数字经济以获取收益的全新资本形态。数字资本深刻塑造了法律秩序，其在创造价值的同时，也带来了数据收益分配失衡、算法权力扩张以及个体人格发展受限等潜在问题。面对数字资本的两面性，全球立法者开始探索超越传统“二分法”的权利形态。我国《个人信息保护法》创设的“可携带权”“算法解释权”，欧盟《数字市场法》设立的“守门人”义务，均试图在财产权框架内植入人格权益保护机制。制度创新标志着“人格—财产复合权”的萌芽：数据不再被简单归类为物或信息，而是作为人格要素与财产要素的合成体，要求法律建立动态平衡的保护范式，以实现“算法正义”与“数字共生”的新型法益结构。

The Uniqueness and Challenges of the Legal Interest Structure of Digital Capital

数字资本法益结构的独特性与挑战

The processes of formation and return generation of digital capital respectively embody the capitalization of data and the digitalization of capital. The rise of digital capital marks a paradigm shift in human civilization from material production to data production. In the coupling of digital technology and the logic of capital, data is no longer relegated to a supplementary role among traditional factors of production; instead, through algorithmic modeling, computing power drive, and platform aggregation, it forms a value creation system with self-organizing capabilities. However, this new form of capital exhibits, to a certain extent, the core characteristic of "dual alienation of personality and property": data as a means of production carries deep personality elements such as users' behavioral traces and emotional preferences, yet is alienated into quantifiable commodities for trade within the algorithmic framework of platform capital. This impacts the dualistic legal structure of "personality rights—property rights" established in the industrial civilization era, forcing the traditional legal system to adjust its value cognition—data profiling becomes a tool for precision marketing, sentiment analysis algorithms manipulate users' consumption decisions, yet the law still uses the possession rules of property law to address the attribution of digital personality.

数字资本形成和获取收益的过程分别体现了数字的资本化和资本的数字化。数字资本的崛起标志着人类文明从物质生产向数据生产的范式跃迁。在数字技术与资本逻辑的耦合中，数据不再屈居传统生产要素的辅助地位，而是通过算法建模、算力驱动与平台聚合，形成了具有自组织能力的价值创造体系。不过，这种新型资本形态在一定程度上具有“人格—财产双重异化”的核心特征：作为生产资料的数据既承载着用户的行为轨迹、情感偏好等深度人格要素，又在平台资本的算法框架中被异化为可量化交易的商品，由此冲击了工业文明时代“人格权—财产权”二元分立的法律结构，使得传统法律体系面临价值认知的调整——数据画像成为了精准营销的工具，情感分析算法摆布了用户的消费决策，法律却仍然在用物权法的占有规则处理数字人格的归属问题。

Another existing practical challenge is that the proliferation mechanism of digital capital can break the spatiotemporal boundaries of traditional labor. By constructing a value chain of "data collection—algorithmic modeling—ecosystem closure," platform enterprises transform users' unpaid digital labor (social interactions, location sharing, etc.) into the platform's monopolistic assets, thereby exacerbating distributional injustice under the "digital divide." Furthermore, through technological powers such as algorithmic black boxes and protocol bundling, platforms may affect individuals' control over their own personality elements. Against the backdrop of a lack of broad consensus in legal discussions on data ownership, in practice, platform enterprises have already established relatively mature systems for constructing value chains based on user data, while individual activities continuously generate data streams with economic value.

同样存在的现实挑战在于，数字资本的增殖机制会打破传统劳动的时空边界。平台企业通过构建“数据采集—算法建模—生态闭环”的价值链，将用户的无酬数字劳动（社交互动、位置共享等）转化为平台的垄断性资产，由此加剧了“数字鸿沟”下的分配不公。此外，平台通过算法黑箱、协议捆绑等技术权力，可能会影响个体对自身人格要素的控制权。在关于数据权属的法律讨论尚未达成广泛共识的背景下，实践中，平台企业基于用户数据构建价值链条的体系已较为成熟，个体活动持续产生着具有经济价值的数据流。

The Limitations of Traditional Legal Interest Structures in Responding to Digital Capital

传统法益结构应对数字资本的局限性

The cornerstone of the legal system of the industrial civilization era—the property rights standard—is built upon the philosophical presupposition of the "separation of things and persons." Property law, through the division of powers such as possession, use, and disposal, solidifies capital as a divisible and transferable object; contract law, through autonomy of will, constructs an exchange order to ensure the efficiency of capital flow. The limitation of this institutional design lies in its foundational presupposition of the personality neutrality of capital, neglecting the embedding of personality elements in the process of digital capital generation.

工业文明时代法律体系的基石——财产权本位建立在“物与人分离”的哲学预设之上。物权法通过占有、使用、处分等权能划分，将资本固化为可分割、可让渡的客体；合同法通过意思自治构建交换秩序，确保资本流动的效率。这套制度设计的局限性在于，其构建基础预设了资本的人格中立性，忽视了数字资本生成过程中的人格要素嵌入。

The value creation of digital capital follows a completely different logic. The 2.5 trillion bytes of data generated globally every day are, in essence, the digital extension of human activities. Browsing records reflect cognitive preferences, payment data map consumption ethics—these elements constitute the "mirror self" of digital personality. However, when identifying the attributes of data, the current legal system tends to primarily classify it as "information property." Platforms obtain exclusive usage rights through user agreements, yet are not required to pay consideration for the continuous consumption of personality elements. This discrepancy between institutional positioning and actual attributes may lead to two problems: first, an imbalance in the distribution of data returns, where platforms capture the value-added benefits of data while individuals only obtain limited service access rights; second, the unlimited expansion of algorithmic power, where platforms can deeply intervene in individuals' freedom of personality development through technologies such as user behavior sequence modeling and affective computing.

数字资本的价值创造遵循着完全不同的逻辑。全球每天产生的2.5万亿字节数据，本质上都是人的活动的数字化延伸。浏览记录反映认知偏好，支付数据映射消费伦理——这些要素构成数字人格的“镜像自我”。然而，现行法律体系在识别数据属性时，往往倾向于将其主要归类为“信息财产”，平台通过用户协议取得排他性使用权，却无需为持续的人格要素消耗支付对价。这种制度定位与现实属性的差异可能导致两方面的问题：一是数据收益分配失衡，平台攫取数据增值收益，而个体仅获得有限服务接入权；二是算法权力的无限扩张，平台可以通过用户行为序列建模、情感计算等技术深度干预用户的人格发展自由。

The practice of the EU's GDPR reflects the inadequacy of the traditional paradigm in responding to digital capital. Although the regulation grants users new rights such as the right to be informed and the right to erasure, its institutional core still fails to break through the property rights framework. The obligations of data controllers are simplified to risk prevention and control, rather than establishing a mechanism for valuing personality elements; the rights of data subjects stop at ex post facto remedies, failing to participate in the value distribution of digital capital operations. This model, focused on risk prevention and ex post facto remedies, enables platform enterprises to continuously consolidate their data monopoly positions through means such as protocol nesting and technological circumvention.

欧盟GDPR的实践反映出传统范式在应对数字资本时的力不从心。虽然条例赋予用户知情权、删除权等新型权利，但其制度内核仍然未能突破财产权框架。数据控制者的义务被简化为风险防控，而非建立人格要素的价值衡量机制；数据主体的权利止步于事后救济，未能参与数字资本运作的价值分配。侧重于风险防控和事后救济的模式使平台企业能够通过协议嵌套、技术规避等手段持续巩固数据垄断地位。

Practical Transformation and Institutional Innovation of the Legal Interest Structure

法益结构的实践转型与制度创新

In practice, three institutional bottlenecks are faced: First, incorporating data autonomy into the consent rules of contract law essentially uses the logic of property transfer to handle the control of personality elements, which may lead users to face cumbersome consent processes, and platform agreement terms are sometimes overly complex and binding. Second, when personality dignity conflicts with data utility (e.g., the contradiction between medical data sharing and privacy protection), the law lacks a benchmark for determining priority. In practice, commercial efficiency and capital considerations sometimes receive relatively greater weight. Finally, regulatory tools suffer from "fragmentation": civil law focuses on individual remedies, antitrust law concerns market structure, and personal information protection law focuses on data processing procedures; the value tensions among different branches of law exacerbate the difficulty of institutional coordination.

实践中面临着三重制度瓶颈：首先，将数据自主权纳入合同法的同意规则实质是用财产让渡逻辑处理人格要素控制问题，可能导致用户面临繁琐的同意流程，且平台协议条款有时过于复杂和具有约束力。其次，当人格尊严与数据效用发生冲突时（如医疗数据共享与隐私保护的矛盾），法律缺乏优先顺位的判断基准。在实践中，商业效率和资本考量有时会获得相对更大的权重。最后，规制工具存在“碎片化”问题，民法侧重个体救济，反垄断法关注市场结构，个人信息保护法则聚焦数据处理流程，不同部门法的价值张力加剧了制度协同的难度。

The above bottlenecks partly stem from the asymmetric distribution of technical capabilities between platforms and individuals. Platform enterprises continuously optimize algorithmic control through machine learning, while the right to an explanation of algorithms granted to users by law remains at the level of "principled declarations." When algorithmic decisions can already predict users' behavioral preferences for the next three months, ex post facto informed consent mechanisms may appear lagging and ineffective. The actual influence of technical rules (code) on behavioral patterns is increasingly significant, posing challenges to the effective implementation of the composite right concept.

上述瓶颈部分源于技术能力在平台与个体之间的不对称分布。平台企业通过机器学习不断优化算法控制力，而法律赋予用户的算法解释权却停留在“原则性宣示”层面。当算法决策已经能预测用户未来三个月的行为偏好时，事后的知情同意机制可能显得滞后和乏力。技术规则（代码）对行为模式的实际影响力日益显著，这对有效落实复合权构想提出了挑战。

To further adapt to the characteristics of digital capital and build a more effective governance system, it is necessary to establish a "three-dimensional integrated" legal interest structure system. The first dimension is the theory of legal interest stratification, establishing the independent legal status of "digital personality rights," separating them from traditional personality rights and endowing them with positive powers. "Digital personality rights" include the right to data self-determination, the right to algorithmic resistance (refusing the intervention of automated decision-making in personality development), the right to digital heritage inheritance, etc. The second dimension is a mechanism for balancing interests, which can draw on the land usufructuary rights system to construct a tiered distribution model for data returns. At the basic level, guarantee users' legal right to fruits from raw data (e.g., data collection compensation); in terms of value addition, establish a revenue-sharing ratio between platforms and users, while setting up punitive compensation funds for data abuse. Additionally, a "data trust" system can be introduced, where independent third parties manage public data assets to prevent platform private interests from eroding public interests. The third dimension is an institutional coordination framework: promote antitrust law to identify "data essential facilities," compelling leading platforms to open non-core data interfaces; revise the Cybersecurity Law of the People's Republic of China to add algorithmic transparency clauses, requiring platforms to disclose the basic parameters and training datasets of recommendation algorithms; establish a "digital supervisor" system to conduct full life-cycle supervision of platform data processing. Furthermore, mandatory norms for "algorithmic impact assessment" should be constructed, implementing filing and review for high-risk algorithms such as social recommendation and credit scoring; develop a regulatory technology toolchain, using technologies like homomorphic encryption to make data usable but invisible, enhancing regulatory penetration while protecting trade secrets.

为了进一步适应数字资本的特性，构建更有效的治理体系，需要建立“三维一体”的法益结构体系。第一维度是法益分层理论，确立“数字人格权”的独立法律地位，将其从传统人格权中分离并赋予积极权能。“数字人格权”包括数据自我决定权、算法抵抗权（拒绝自动化决策对人格发展的干预）、数字遗产继承权等。第二维度是利益平衡机制，可以借鉴土地用益物权制度构建数据收益阶梯分配模型。在基础层面保障用户对原始数据的法定孳息权（如数据采集补偿金），在增值方面可以建立平台与用户的收益共享比例，同时设立数据滥用惩罚性赔偿基金。此外，可以引入“数据信托”制度，由独立第三方管理公共数据资产，防止平台私利侵蚀公共利益。第三维度是制度协同框架，推动反垄断法识别“数据必需设施”，强制头部平台开放非核心数据接口；修订《中华人民共和国网络安全法》增加算法透明度条款，要求平台公开推荐算法的基础参数与训练数据集；建立“数字监察官”制度，对平台数据处理进行全生命周期监督。此外，还应构建“算法影响评估”强制规范，对社交推荐、信用评分等高风险算法实施备案审查，研发监管科技工具链，通过同态加密等技术实现数据可用不可见，在保障商业机密的同时提升监管穿透力。

In summary, the structural transformation of legal interests in digital capital is essentially a legal projection of the evolution from industrial civilization to digital civilization. As humanity gradually migrates cognitive activities, social relations, and even emotional experiences into digital space, law must reconstruct its value coordinate system, shifting from “absolute ownership” to “digital symbiosis,” upgrading from “freedom of contract” to “algorithmic justice,” and evolving from “protection of private rights” to “digital human rights.” This requires us to discard the mechanical thinking that reduces personality elements to property objects, and to establish a new balance between technological power and individual dignity: both acknowledging the efficiency gains brought by developing the digital economy and ensuring, through institutional innovation, that everyone can retain inalienable personal dignity within the digital ecosystem.

综上，数字资本的法益结构变迁本质上是工业文明向数字文明演进的法律投射。当人类逐渐将认知活动、社会关系乃至情感体验迁移至数字空间，法律必须重构其价值坐标系，从“所有权绝对”转向为“数字共生”，从“契约自由”升级成“算法正义”，从“私权保护”进化至“数字人权”。这要求我们摒弃将人格要素降格为财产客体的机械思维，在技术权力与个体尊严之间建立新的平衡点：既承认发展数字经济带来的效率提升，又通过制度创新确保每个人都能在数字生态中保有不可让渡的人格尊严。

(The author is a doctoral student at the School of Marxism, Guangxi University)

（作者系广西大学马克思主义学院博士研究生）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心