A Dialectical View of the Relationship between Digital Platform Development and Governance

Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has attached great importance to developing and governing the internet, coordinated the advancement of cybersecurity and informatization, profoundly answered a series of major theoretical and practical questions concerning the development of cybersecurity and informatization, and formed Xi Jinping’s thought on cyber power. Digital platform governance is an important component of building a cyber power. Scientifically understanding the development trends and characteristics of digital platforms and studying the inherent laws of digital platform governance are of great significance for grasping the rules of digital platform governance and for further advancing the development of cybersecurity and informatization and building a cyber power.

党的十八大以来，以习近平同志为核心的党中央高度重视发展互联网、治理互联网，统筹推进网络安全和信息化工作，深刻回答了事关网信事业发展的一系列重大理论和实践问题，形成了习近平总书记关于网络强国的重要思想。数字平台治理是网络强国建设的重要内容。科学认识数字平台发展趋势和特点，研究数字平台治理内在规律，对于把握数字平台治理规则，深入推进网信事业发展和建设网络强国具有重要意义。

Optimizing digital platform governance is an important component of building a cyber power

优化数字平台治理是建设网络强国的重要内容

Digital platforms generally refer to interactive spaces formed on the basis of the internet that integrate multiple functions such as information exchange, resource sharing, and online services. “Digital platforms and cloud computing enterprises are accelerating their global layout; they are important entities for data aggregation, matching and intermediation, destination analysis, and technical support, and will increasingly become the core of the global digital economy industry chain and value chain.” Digital platforms can play multiple roles in this, including content providers, social media, e-commerce websites, and online service providers. “In 2022, the international business scale of the global TOP10 digital platform enterprises grew by over 5% year-on-year; except for Amazon, the international business share of the TOP5 enterprises all exceeded 49%.” With the vigorous development of the internet, digital platformization has become an important development trend.

数字平台一般是指基于互联网所形成的一种集成信息交流、资源共享和在线服务等多种功能的互动空间。“数字平台和云计算企业加快全球布局，是数据汇集、匹配撮合、去处分析、技术支持的重要主体，将日益成为全球数字经济产业链价值链的核心。”数字平台在其中可以扮演多种角色，包括内容提供商、社交媒体、电子商务网站、在线服务提供商等。“全球TOP10数字平台企业2022年国际业务规模同比增速超5%；TOP5企业除亚马逊外，其余国际业务占比均超49%。”随着互联网的蓬勃发展，数字平台化成为重要发展趋势。

Based on platformization strategies, numerous internet giants have developed into international digital platforms, becoming important drivers of the global economy and occupying key positions in capital markets. Moreover, the user scale of digital platforms has also shown explosive growth. Billions of people worldwide use these platforms for various activities such as communication, socializing, shopping, and entertainment. From a functional perspective, with technological progress, the number of digital platforms continues to increase, and the scope of services continues to expand. Early digital platforms mainly provided basic communication and information retrieval services, while current digital platforms have covered multiple fields such as social networking, e-commerce, online education, finance, healthcare, and entertainment. In addition, platforms are constantly launching new features, such as AI assistants, virtual reality and augmented reality experiences, and IoT integration. It can be foreseen that such a huge user scale, combined with such diverse application types and broad coverage areas, will inevitably have a profound impact on the connotation of platform power and the laws of its generation, thereby bringing a profound impact on network governance. Against the backdrop of the continuous expansion of digital platform scale and functions, how to continue optimizing digital platform governance has become an important component of building a cyber power.

基于平台化战略，众多互联网巨头已经发展成为国际性数字平台，成为全球经济的重要驱动力，并在资本市场中占据关键位置。不仅如此，数字平台的用户规模也呈现出爆炸性增长态势。全球数十亿人使用这些平台进行通信、社交、购物、娱乐等多种活动。从功能来看，随着技术的进步，数字平台数量还在持续增加，服务范围也在不断拓展。早期的数字平台主要提供基本的通信和信息检索服务，而现在的数字平台已经涵盖了多个领域，如社交、电商、在线教育、金融、医疗、娱乐等。此外，平台还不断推出新功能，如人工智能助手、虚拟现实和增强现实体验、物联网集成等。可以预见，如此巨大的用户规模与如此多样的应用类型及广泛的覆盖领域，必将对数字平台的权力内涵及其生成规律造成深度影响，并由此对网络治理带来深度冲击。在数字平台规模和功能不断扩大的背景下，如何继续优化数字平台治理成为建设网络强国的重要内容。

Grasping the contradictory relations triggered by digital platform power

把握数字平台权力引发的矛盾关系

The prerequisite for optimizing digital platform governance is to recognize the core contradictory relations formed around platform power. The power possessed by digital platforms originates from their irreplaceability as digital infrastructure in a deeply mediatized society. So-called digital infrastructure refers to a socially universal information infrastructure composed of hardware, software, and networks, which can provide functions such as computing, storage, transmission, processing, and analysis of data, and can support large-scale social and economic activities. The particularity of large digital platforms themselves as a type of digital infrastructure lies in the fact that, because digital platforms connect a large number of users and producers, they form a broad ecosystem including developers, partners, suppliers, etc., and possess massive user data and powerful algorithmic capabilities. They can not only provide digital products and services that guarantee the basic operation of society but also offer highly personalized services to users, thereby generating strong network effects for the platform and creating strong path dependence for users. This attribute of digital platforms provides a monopolistic guarantee for their power. It can be said that the power of digital platforms is an inevitable result of the mediatization of infrastructure and the infrastructuralization of media. This reflects a mechanism of power production based on social infrastructure, that is, by possessing social infrastructure, one has direct control over the users of the infrastructure, thereby exerting a dominant influence on the entire society.

优化数字平台治理，前提是认清围绕平台权力所形成的核心矛盾关系。数字平台拥有的权力源于其作为深度媒介化社会中的数字基础设施所具有的不可替代性。所谓数字基础设施，是指由硬件、软件和网络组成的一种社会通用的信息基础设施，可以提供计算、存储、传输、处理和分析数据等功能，能够支持大规模的社会和经济活动。大型数字平台本身作为一种数字基础设施，其特殊性在于，数字平台因为连接了大量用户与生产者，形成了包括开发者、合作伙伴、供应商等在内的广泛的生态圈，掌握了海量用户数据和强大的算法能力，不仅能够提供保障社会基本运行的数字产品和服务，而且能够为用户提供高度个性化的服务，进而使平台产生强大的网络效应，使用户产生极强的路径依赖性。数字平台的这种属性，为其权力提供了一种垄断性保障。可以说，数字平台的权力是基础设施的媒介化与媒介的基础设施化必然产生的结果。这体现出一种基于社会基础设施所形成的权力生产机制，即通过占有社会基础设施对基础设施的使用者拥有直接的支配能力，进而对整个社会产生支配性的影响力。

Against the backdrop of deep mediatization, digital platforms have changed the way information is disseminated, allowing information to spread rapidly across the globe, and the monopoly of traditional international power subjects over information dissemination is constantly being broken. Digital platforms have also changed the way people interact socially, prompting social relations to shift online and achieving real-time interaction on a global scale. This also requires traditional international power subjects in the political, economic, cultural, and other fields to adapt to new forms of social interaction. Based on these new mechanisms, international online digital platforms have generated widespread influence in the fields of international politics, economy, and culture, thereby forming new types of power and changing the traditional mechanisms of power operation. The complex contradictory relations triggered by digital platform power are mainly manifested in the following four levels.

在深度媒介化背景下，数字平台改变了信息传播的方式，使得信息在全球范围内迅速传播，传统国际权力主体对信息传播的垄断地位不断被打破。数字平台还改变了人们的社会互动方式，促使社会关系向线上转移，并实现了在全球范围内的即时互动，这也要求政治、经济、文化等领域的传统国际权力主体适应新的社会互动方式。基于这些新的机制，国际网络数字平台在国际政治、经济、文化等领域产生了广泛影响力，从而形成了新的权力类型，改变了传统的权力作用机制。数字平台权力所引发的复杂矛盾关系，主要表现为如下四个层面。

There is a power game over digital platforms between countries or regions. Fundamentally, this is triggered by the enormous power digital platforms possess in areas such as information dissemination, commercial services, and user data. This game is manifested in multiple dimensions, focusing on information sovereignty and data security, public opinion control, and commercial monopoly. Specifically, first, the game between countries or regions over information sovereignty and data security has become an important aspect of the global political and economic landscape. As an important component of the digital age, digital platforms carry a large amount of user data and interactive information, involving major interests such as national security and social stability. Therefore, all countries are actively strengthening their cybersecurity prevention and countermeasure capabilities to ensure their own information security. Second, information flow and public opinion control have become important means for countries or regions to compete for influence and discursive power. On the one hand, because digital platforms provide extensive channels for information dissemination, they are of great significance to international relations and the influence of international public opinion. Some countries hope to use digital platforms to promote their national interests and political goals. On the other hand, due to the openness and freedom of digital platforms, some countries fear that information dissemination may have a negative impact on their political stability, or even be used for political intervention, and therefore hope to strengthen the regulation of information dissemination and online public opinion. Third, there is also a game between countries or regions regarding the commercial monopoly and market competition of digital platforms. On the one hand, some countries or regions fear that a few digital platforms will form a monopoly, which may lead to these platforms gaining excessive power in information acquisition, data control, etc., harming the interests of the country and consumers. On the other hand, the business models of digital platforms are usually not limited by national borders, which allows digital platforms to conduct business globally, challenging the market position of local enterprises. Therefore, these countries or regions have adopted different measures to limit the commercial monopoly of digital platforms and promote market competition. For example, the antitrust regulatory authorities of the European Union have conducted multiple investigations into the business practices of US online digital platforms such as Google, Amazon, and Facebook in the past few years, and have imposed hefty fines on some of these companies.

国家或地区之间存在数字平台权力博弈。从根本上讲，这是由数字平台在信息传播、商业服务、用户数据等方面拥有的巨大权力所引发的。这种博弈表现在多个纬度，聚焦在信息主权与数据安全、舆论管控以及商业垄断等方面。具体而言，一是国家或地区之间在信息主权和数据安全方面的博弈成为全球政治和经济格局中的一个重要方面。数字平台作为数字化时代的重要组成部分，承载了大量的用户数据和交互信息，涉及国家安全和社会稳定等重大利益。因此，各国都在积极加强网络安全防范和反制能力，以确保本国信息安全。二是信息流动和舆论管控成为各国或地区之间争夺影响力和话语权的重要手段。一方面，由于数字平台提供了广泛的信息传播渠道，对国际关系、国际舆论影响等都具有重要意义。有的国家希望利用数字平台来推动其国家利益和政治目标的实现。另一方面，由于数字平台具有开放性和自由性，一些国家担心信息传播会对其政治稳定产生负面影响，甚至会被用来进行政治干预，因此希望加强对信息传播和网络舆论的监管。三是国家或地区之间在数字平台的商业垄断与市场竞争方面也存在博弈。一方面，一些国家或地区担心少数数字平台形成垄断，这可能导致这些平台在信息获取、数据控制等方面获得过大的权力，损害本国和消费者的利益。另一方面，数字平台的商业模式通常不受国家边界的限制，这使得数字平台可以在全球范围内开展业务，挑战当地企业的市场地位。因此，这些国家或地区采取了不同的措施来限制数字平台的商业垄断，并促进市场竞争。例如，欧盟的反垄断监管机构在过去几年中对谷歌、亚马逊、脸谱等美国网络数字平台的商业行为进行了多次调查，并对其中一些公司开出了高额罚单。

There exists a power struggle over digital platforms between the state and platform capital. As the representative and defender of the public interest, the state bears certain regulatory responsibilities over the power of digital platforms, while capital focuses more on and pursues its own commercial interests. The contradictory relationship between the two is mainly manifested in the following aspects: First, as one of the important vehicles for capital operations, digital platforms possess strong capacities for capital accumulation and capital circulation. This enables digital platforms to acquire large amounts of user data on a global scale, conduct data analysis and mining through refined algorithms, and thereby achieve large-scale targeted advertising and data marketing. The highly monopolistic and highly dependent nature of these economic activities makes digital platforms one of the important drivers of capital globalization, which in turn creates a certain contradiction with the state’s regulation of capital. Second, user stickiness to digital platforms is very strong, and users’ dependence on platforms is also very high. This means that platforms, to a large extent, control users’ attention and information flow, becoming an important force in shaping public opinion and ideology. For example, some social media platforms, through the operation of algorithms and recommendation systems, can trap users in information cocoons regarding information and viewpoints, forming “filter bubbles” and “cognitive biases,” thereby influencing the formation and dissemination of public discourse. This also poses a serious challenge to the state’s ideological security. Third, the transnational and decentralized characteristics of digital platforms mean that they largely transcend traditional national borders and the scope of the international political system. The relevant laws and regulatory capacities of countries or regions often lag behind the development of digital platforms, which has also given rise to some cross-border disputes and power conflicts, such as issues of cross-border data flows and privacy protection. It is worth noting that in the process of the power struggle over platforms, the state and platform capital have adopted different strategies and means. The state, through regulatory and legal means, attempts to restrict digital platforms’ collection and use of domestic data and information, especially their outflow abroad, in order to safeguard national information security and the public interest; platform capital, on the other hand, through powerful capital operations and market dominance, attempts to control the economic activities and capital flows of data platforms, thereby expanding their own market share and profit margins on a global scale. However, the complexity of digital platform company ownership and the privacy of internal corporate governance create a certain contradictory relationship between state governance and the operations of platform capital.

国家与平台资本间存在数字平台权力博弈。作为公共利益的代表者与维护者，国家对于数字平台权力负有一定的管控职责，而资本则更多地关注和追求自身的商业利益。两者之间的矛盾关系主要表现在：一是数字平台作为资本运作的重要载体之一，具有强大的资本积累能力和资本流通能力。这使得数字平台能够在全球范围内获取大量用户数据，通过精细化的算法进行数据分析和挖掘，从而实现大规模广告定向投放和数据营销。这些经济活动的高度垄断性和高度依赖性，使得数字平台成为了资本全球化的重要推动者之一，进而与国家对资本的监管行为形成一定矛盾。二是数字平台的用户黏性非常强，用户对于平台的依赖程度也很高。这就使得平台在很大程度上掌握着用户的注意力和信息流，成为了塑造公共舆论和意识形态的重要力量。例如，一些社交媒体平台通过算法和推荐系统的运作方式，可以让用户在信息和观点上陷入信息茧房，形成“过滤气泡”和“认知偏差”，从而影响公共话语的形成和传播，这同样对国家的意识形态安全带来了严峻挑战。三是数字平台的跨国性和去中心化特征，使得其在很大程度上超越了传统的国家边界和国际政治体系范畴。国家或地区间的相关法律和监管能力往往滞后于数字平台的发展状况，也由此产生了一些跨境争端和权力冲突，例如跨国数据流动和隐私保护等问题。值得注意的是，在针对平台权力的博弈过程中，国家和平台资本采取了不同的策略和手段。国家通过监管和法律手段，试图限制数字平台对本国数据和信息的收集、利用，特别是向境外流动，以维护本国信息安全和公共利益；而平台资本则通过强大的资本运作和市场支配能力，试图控制数据平台的经济活动和资本流动，从而在全球范围内扩大自身的市场份额和利润空间。但数字平台公司所有权的复杂性与公司内部治理的私密性，使得国家治理与平台资本运行形成一定的矛盾关系。

There exists a power struggle over digital platforms among various types of capital. Different types of capital exhibit different characteristics in their competition for digital platform power. On the one hand, traditional industrial capital shows a certain degree of resistance and opposition to the rise of digital platforms, because the rise of digital platforms has impacted the profits of traditional industrial capital. For example, companies primarily in the traditional media industry have seen their audiences dwindle due to the rise of digital platforms, thereby reducing their revenue. In addition, some companies in traditional industries face considerable competitive pressure as their market expansion space is squeezed by the rise of digital platforms. On the other hand, large internet companies compete among themselves for digital platform power. These companies possess huge user bases and market shares globally, and have first-mover advantages in technological research and development and business models, thus wielding significant digital platform power. These companies also expand their share of the digital platform market through acquisitions, mergers, and strategic partnerships, and attempt to integrate their own ecosystems with network platforms to further enhance their competitiveness and expand market share. Furthermore, some emerging capital has also begun to flood into the digital platform market, seeking business opportunities and development space. For example, companies in blockchain technology, virtual reality and augmented reality technology, etc., all attempt to combine their own technologies with digital platforms to create new business models and market opportunities. The emergence of this emerging capital in the digital platform market further intensifies competition among capitals, making the power struggle over network platforms more complex and intense.

各类资本之间存在数字平台权力博弈。不同类型的资本对于数字平台权力的争夺表现出不同的特点。一方面，传统产业资本对于数字平台的崛起表现出一定程度的抵制和反对，因为数字平台的崛起使得传统产业资本的利润受到一定的冲击。例如，以传统媒体业为主的公司，因为数字平台的崛起使得传统媒体行业的受众流失，从而减少了其收入。此外，一些传统行业公司由于数字平台的崛起而自身市场拓展空间受到挤压，面临不小的竞争压力。另一方面，大型互联网公司之间则表现出对于数字平台权力的争夺。这些公司在全球范围内拥有庞大的用户群体和市场份额，并且在技术研发和商业模式上拥有先发优势，因此具备较大的数字平台权力。这些公司也通过收购、合并和战略合作等方式扩大其在数字平台市场上的份额，并试图将自身的生态系统与网络平台相结合，进一步提升自身的竞争力和扩大市场份额。此外，还有一些新兴的资本也开始涌入数字平台市场，试图在该市场中寻求商业机会和发展空间。例如，区块链技术的公司、虚拟现实和增强现实技术的公司等，都试图将自身的技术与数字平台相结合，从而创造出新的商业模式和市场机会。这些新兴资本在数字平台市场上的涌现也进一步加剧了资本之间的竞争，使得对网络平台权力的博弈更加复杂和激烈。

As public digital infrastructure, the core function of digital platforms is to provide information services and social media functions for the public. However, in the process of operation, digital platforms often require substantial financial support, especially during the start-up and expansion phases. Therefore, platforms typically face a contradiction between capital ownership and the attributes of public digital infrastructure. Specifically, this contradiction is manifested in the following aspects: First, the contradiction between profit maximization and public service. The owners of digital platforms usually operate the platform for profit, while the essence of public digital infrastructure is to serve the public. When the interests of the two conflict, platform owners often prioritize their own interests and neglect public service. Second, the contradiction between platform owners’ control over data and privacy and user rights. Digital platforms typically need to collect user data and information to provide better services, but this behavior often raises issues of user privacy and data protection. Platform owners need to balance control over data and privacy with user rights, but achieving such a balance is extremely difficult. Third, the contradiction between platform owners and users. The business objective of platform owners is to achieve profitability and development, while users focus on the services and experience provided by the platform. When the business objectives of platform owners conflict with user needs, this contradiction becomes particularly pronounced.

作为公共数字基础设施，数字平台的核心功能是为公众提供信息服务和社交媒体功能。然而数字平台在运营过程中，往往需要大量的资金支持，尤其是在平台初创期和扩张期。因此，平台通常会面临资本所有权与公共数字基础设施属性之间的矛盾。具体而言，这种矛盾体现在以下方面：一是利润最大化与公共服务之间的矛盾。数字平台的所有者通常是为了盈利而运营平台，而公共数字基础设施的本质是为了服务社会公众。当这两者的利益发生冲突时，平台所有者往往会优先考虑自身利益，而忽略公共服务。二是平台所有者对数据和隐私的掌控与用户权益之间的矛盾。数字平台通常需要收集用户的数据和信息来为其提供更好的服务，但是这种行为往往会引发用户隐私和数据保护的问题。平台所有者需要在数据和隐私掌控与用户权益之间进行平衡，但是要达到这种平衡难度极大。三是平台所有者与用户之间的矛盾。平台所有者的经营目标是为了实现盈利和发展，而用户则关注平台提供的服务和体验。当平台所有者的经营目标与用户需求发生冲突时，这种矛盾就会变得尤为明显。

Recommendations for the Main Principles of Digital Platform Governance

数字平台治理主要原则的建议

Taken together, digital platform power is built within the platform ecosystem. This power, through means such as openness, alliances, and ecological cooperation, continuously expands its dominance and influence over various fields of society, forming a new power structure. This power configuration is no longer a simple “center-periphery” relationship, but a multi-layered relational network centered on platforms. This poses new challenges and transformations to the traditional political and economic power structure and modes of operation, thereby giving rise to governance requirements for digital platforms. Synthesizing the above contradictory relationships, it is recommended to grasp the following principles in governance.

综合来看，数字平台权力是建立在平台生态系统中的。这种权力通过开放、联盟和生态合作等方式，不断扩展对社会各领域的支配力与影响力，形成了全新的权力结构。这种权力格局不再是单一的“中心—边缘”关系，而是以平台为中心的多重关系网络，这使得传统的政治和经济权力格局和作用方式面临着新的挑战和变革，并由此产生了对数字平台的治理要求。综合上述矛盾关系，建议在治理中把握好以下原则。

Adhere to the principle of sustainable governance. Adhering to the principle of sustainability in digital platform governance means that in promoting the governance of digital platforms, consideration must be given to long-term political, economic, social, and cultural environmental impacts, to ensure that platforms not only grow healthily in the short term but can also continue to create value for users, society, and the platforms themselves in the future. This requires balancing and coordinating the short-term goals of platform governance with the objectives of long-term sustainable development, addressing not only immediate problems but also considering future development. For the state, it is necessary to recognize that digital platform governance is key to strengthening digital infrastructure construction and plays an increasingly important role in solving fundamental issues related to the national economy and people’s livelihood in the digital era. In particular, since digital platforms have become a frontier field of national strategic competition, “development is the absolute principle”[1]1 A famous dictum attributed to Deng Xiaoping, encapsulating the core logic of China’s reform and opening-up policy, prioritizing economic growth as the fundamental solution to various social and political problems. remains applicable in digital platform governance. Only by properly grasping the dialectical relationship between development and governance and building world-class international digital platforms can a true cyber power be established.

坚持可持续治理原则。在数字平台治理中坚持可持续原则意味着在推动数字平台治理的过程中，要考虑到长期的政治、经济、社会和文化环境等影响，以确保平台不仅在短期内健康成长，而且能在未来持续地为用户、社会和平台自身创造价值。这就要求平衡和协调平台治理的短期目标和长远可持续发展的目标，不仅解决眼前问题，还要考虑未来的发展。对国家而言，要认识到数字平台治理是加强数字基础设施建设的关键，对于在数字时代背景下解决好国计民生的根本性问题发挥着日益重要的作用。特别是由于数字平台已经成为国家战略博弈的前沿领域，“发展才是硬道理”在数字平台治理中依然适用。只有把握好发展与治理的辩证关系，建设一流的国际数字平台，才能建设成为真正的网络强国。

Adhere to the principle of proactive governance. The principle of proactive governance emphasizes the proactive responsibility and positive role of all governance parties in platform governance. This means that the state should actively and proactively participate in and lead the governance process, jointly formulating an acceptable governance framework with platforms, social organizations, industries, and users to promote the healthy and orderly development of platforms and safeguard user rights and the order of digital society. For platforms, they should establish cooperative mechanisms with the government, industry associations, user representatives, etc., jointly formulate governance rules and standards applicable to all parties through regular communication, consultation, and cooperation; proactively provide solutions and measures to problems, actively participate in the construction of the digital platform ecosystem, and jointly address challenges related to security, privacy, content, etc.; actively disclose important information, demonstrating their own operational status, governance measures, and effectiveness to users and the public, thereby enhancing the transparency of decision-making.

坚持主动治理原则。主动治理原则强调治理各方在平台治理中的主动责任和积极作用，这意味着国家应当积极主动地参与和引领治理过程，与平台、社会组织、行业以及用户共同制定一个可接受的治理框架，以促进平台的健康有序发展，维护用户权益和数字社会的秩序。对于平台而言，应与政府、行业协会、用户代表等建立合作机制，通过定期沟通、协商和合作，共同制定适用于各方的治理规则和标准；主动提供解决问题的方案和措施，积极参与数字平台生态的建设，共同应对涉及安全、隐私、内容等方面的挑战；积极公开重要信息，向用户和社会公众展示自身的运营情况、治理举措和成效，提高决策的透明度。

Adhere to the principle of flexible governance. The principle of flexible governance means that governance strategies and methods should possess adaptability, flexibility, and adjustability, capable of being adjusted in response to technological development, social changes, and changes in user needs, so as to maintain effectiveness and sustainability. Flexible governance emphasizes avoiding rigid rules and inflexible control in the governance process, focusing on making corresponding adjustments based on actual circumstances to achieve better governance outcomes. Flexible governance emphasizes innovative thinking, encouraging digital platforms to adopt new technological means and management methods to address new problems and new challenges. This also means that multiple different governance methods and means can be adopted, selecting appropriate methods according to different situations, and avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach. In addition, to advance flexible governance, it is necessary to establish monitoring mechanisms, collect information in a timely manner, evaluate governance effects, and make adjustments and improvements based on feedback.

坚持弹性治理原则。弹性治理原则意味着治理策略和方法应具有适应性、灵活性和可调节性，能够随着技术发展、社会变化和用户需求的变化而调整，以保持有效性和可持续性。弹性治理强调在治理过程中避免僵化的规则和刚性的控制，注重根据实际情况作出相应调整，以达到更好的治理效果。弹性治理强调创新性思维，鼓励数字平台采用新的技术手段和管理方法，以应对新问题和新挑战。这也意味着可以采用多种不同的治理方式和手段，根据不同情况选择合适的方法，避免一刀切的做法。另外，为了推进弹性治理，还需要建立监测机制，及时收集信息，评估治理效果，根据反馈进行调整和改进。

Online editor: Zhang Fujun

网络编辑：张福军