迈向合作治理:通过法律规制平台经济的制度边界及优化

通过法律规制平台经济的过程,其实质是在治理平台经济发展带来的负面性问题。借助法律多元主义理论视角分析平台经济发展的制度供给,会发现国家法律与平台规则共同构成平台经济发展的制度约束与保障,同时也是平台治理的重要制度资源。任何一项制度资源的投入会随着制度实施的环境条件以及制度执行者的价值观念变化而产生制度成本与效益的边际效应,这就为国家法律与平台规则的功能范围设定了制度边界,因而需要优化配置制度资源的投入和组合。而国家法律和平台规则的互嵌性,以及国家法律与平台规则在服务于平台经济创新发展的目标耦合性,也就决定了国家法律和平台规则之间存在制度合作的空间。因此在平台经济治理中,通过审慎评估国家法律在平台经济领域的实施效果,有效吸纳平台规则的治理优势,优化政府监管执法资源投入,可以有效形成合作治理的平台经济秩序。     

地方政府信用治理的法律分析

由于地方政府自身信用问题存在的普遍性、因历史积累所形成的规模性、综合治理的难巨性及其在信用经济体系中的重要性,政府信用治理已经成为国家信用综合治理的重心与核心.通过考察地方政府债务危机的成因、构成、表现,可以看出我国地方政府债务风险实际上已经超过金融风险成为威胁我国经济安全与社会稳定的头号杀手.通过分析我国法律的约束不足,强调了地方政府信用治理的乘数效应,可以得出我国法律规制的定位及地方政府信用危机化解方法.     

论行政法制度在经济领域的拓展——以腐败治理为视角

腐败案例简单统计表明,官员腐败案件大都集中于经济建设的相关领域,或者说腐败大多发生在政府享有的经济权力的运行过程,包括项目分配、资源配置、官商关系等,多因对政府经济权力规制不力。长期以来,我国行政法注重政府与个人关系的构建,侧重于对政府传统秩序权力(如行政处罚与行政强制等)的规范,强调对个人权利的救济,忽略对政府经济权力的规制,政府与市场、政府与政府之间的关系没有被整体纳入行政法的制度框架。以经济建设为中心及社会主义市场经济的改革创新决定了政府具有重要的经济职能和经济权力,为了有效规范此类职能与权力,从源头上预防和治理腐败,推进国家治理现代化,需要创新行政法制度,实现其在经济领域的拓展。     

论我国商业贿赂犯罪化结构的完善——参照香港地区《防止贿赂条例》

商业贿赂是经济领域中的一种现象。国家通过刑法的规定构建一套与之相对应的犯罪化结构以便规制。在这种结构上，我国与香港存在着宏观和微观上的许多差别，从本质上来讲就是国家权力主导型和权力一市场平衡型的差别。我国的市场化进程要求犯罪化结构与之相适应，而香港的经验为我们提供全面而又细致的参照。     

网络平台的公共性及其实现——以电商平台的法律规制为视角

网络平台是组织生产力的新型主体,在数字经济时代承担着维护网络市场秩序、保障用户权益的公共职能。网络平台对其用户,特别是对平台内经营者,具有强大的支配力和影响力,此种平台权力属于典型的私权力。网络平台行使私权力有助于减少平台内经营行为的负外部性,弥补政府规制能力的不足,但其私权力也容易遭到滥用。除了要借助市场竞争机制和传统私法规范约束平台私权力,还有必要引入公法原理及其价值要求,对平台私权力进行适度干预。网络平台制定和实施规则时,应遵循基本的程序正义和实体正义标准。法院应对平台滥用私权力的行为进行必要的司法审查。立法者应根据权责利相统一的原则,科学合理地设置平台责任。     

从监管走向治理--数字货币规制的全球格局与实践共识

全球数字货币正沿着两个方向飞速发展,技术驱动下私人数字货币的自发秩序仍在不断生长,而国家规制下法定数字货币的公权扩张也日趋明显。纵观数字货币规制的全球格局,虽然各国在数字货币ICO和交易所监管思路及其最新发展各不相同,但都是在促进金融创新与防范风险之间寻求最优平衡。因地制宜,我国亦不应采取单一的监管或控制思维,而应更多地寻求公权力机构和私权力平台合作,规制理念宜从政府监管向共同治理模式变革:从链下管制走向链上链下相结合的全域治理,从政府直接监管走向“第三方护卫”的间接治理,从国家规制走向超国家规范的规制治理。     

构建政府信用的内部行政法对策研究

政府信用是社会信用的重要内核。在转型社会背景下,切实加强社会信用体系建设,必须坚持以防治政府失信、铸造政府信用为重点,充分发挥政府信用在社会信用建设中的无可替代的示范激励作用。防治政府失信,规制政府行为,打造诚信政府,行政法理应承担起义不容辞的使命。但在探究如何通过行政法构建政府信用这一问题时,人们更多关注的是以立法和司法技术为中心的外部行政法,而内部行政法在其中的作用却没有得到足够的关注。事实上,内部行政法和外部行政法一样,各有其独特的优势和主要的适用范围,也有各自的功能性不足,二者共同构成完整的行政法体系,对规制政府行为,防治政府失信,构建政府信用发挥着不可或缺与不可替代的积极功能与作用。     

算法行政:社会信用体系治理范式及其法治化

大数据下的信用评级机制生成独立于数据本体的数字人格。数字资本主义利用算法控制来推动金融信用的产生与发展,进而监控资本主义利用私有化"数字人格"实施黑箱管控。我国基于数据驱动的社会信用体系属于数字技术公共基础设施,在矫正监控资本主义逐利偏差的同时,生成与法律强制下行政管理方式相并行的算法行政。算法行政作为全新的权力工具导致数字社会治理机制的范式转化,这对法治国的传统法律原则提出挑战。福柯的"规训"理论可以解释基于数字人格的权力运作以及社会信用体系的正当性,也能解构算法行政生成的"自我规制型"问责制,由此生成全新的数字行政法学。这为我国社会信用系统的法律规制提供新形态的学科支撑,也为该制度输出提供西方话语体系中的说服工具。     

刑事诉讼现代化的期待

刑事司法,是国家权力运作的典型场域。在刑事司法中弘扬程序正义理念,发挥程序对国家权力的规制作用,进而加强刑事司法领域的人权保障,至关重要。在推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化的过程中,必须充分认识和发挥程序法的意义和作用。     

运用市场机制配置资源是从源头上防治腐败的有效途径

通过改革和制度创新,可以最大限度地将行政机关可自由支配的权力加以约束,从而消除腐败产生的客观基础,减少腐败机会。具体而言,对于可以由市场自行调节的领域,政府应主动退出,把官员掌握的分配稀缺资源的权力降到最低限度,要最大限度地对行使这种权力的随意性加以削减。     

“大数据杀熟”行为政府治理路径探讨

“大数据杀熟”行为严重损害了消费者权益。相对于传统商业“杀熟”行为,“大数据杀熟”行为更隐蔽,消费者维权更艰难。这种利用算法应用技术损害消费者权益的行为严重违背商业伦理,不仅关乎消费者个人权益,更会影响公共利益,仅凭市场调节难以纠正,需要通过法律进行救济。政府应在遵循辅助性原则的前提下,通过算法应用技术备案、建立“政府-社会”合作规制等制度,用新制度规制新技术,更好地发挥政府在治理“大数据杀熟”行为过程中的作用,保护消费者权益和社会公共利益。     

垄断法下的相关数据市场研究

数据是互联网平台经济的利润中心与关键驱动力.在对平台经济的反垄断审查中,相关机构很少将数据要素纳入审查分析范围.平台经济的反垄断审查分析中需重新审视数据要素的价值.互联网平台是在线经济结构的最有影响力的参与者.与传统的管道业务模型不同,平台市场是多方且相互依存的市场.追求规模化意味着平台须尽一切努力获取数据资源.数据不但有利于改善平台的获利能力,还有利于促进平台业务模型创新.数据市场垄断可能引发进入障碍、隐私侵害和消费者利益损害等.遏制数据市场力对市场竞争的损害需将数据要素纳入反垄断审查范围.在反垄断分析中应将数据市场视为整体.在定义数据市场力时,应考虑数据的市场份额以及收集与处理数据的能力.     

论“饭圈”的法律规制

当下“饭圈”呈现出频繁投诉与举报、非理性消费、数据造假以及组织性的行为失范现象。“饭圈”负面行为的产生与资方控制及平台打榜的主导、艺人与“饭圈”组织者的推动、粉丝的参与及沉浸密切相关。“饭圈”的负面行为违背公序良俗,须进行综合治理。应合理设置平台的内容管理义务、调整刑法对巨额逃税的处罚规则、完善网络举报制度、明确艺人及经纪公司或工作室对粉丝的引导义务。此外,应区分“饭圈”组织者雇主责任、教唆及帮助侵权规则的适用、赋予粉丝组织民事主体身份、家庭内部弘扬优良家风。     

互联网平台涉用户数据不正当竞争的中国典型司法实践分析

涉用户数据在互联网平台间流动的正当性边界,已经成为当前中国司法领域的重要课题之一,并在司法实践中呈现出差异化的特征.在对中国关于数据的法律规定以及基于用户公开发布的内容数据、基于用户个人信息数据、基于用户数据加工而成的衍生数据这三类涉用户数据平台间不正当竞争典型案例分析的基础上,可以发现,针对在先平台受《反不正当竞争法》保护的权益范围边界,尚未有明确的司法规则定论,仍需结合个案因素进行利益平衡.具体应区分考虑数据公开或非公开的状态、数据原始或衍生的属性,且对在先平台合法权益的边界判定时需要综合考虑在先平台的投入程度与回报、在后平台使用数据的数量、在先平台被实质替代的程度等因素,从而在互联网数据合理流通与合理保护中实现平衡与双赢.     

Smartphone platforms as privacy regulators

A series of recent developments highlight the increasingly important role of online platforms in impacting data privacy in today's digital economy. Revelations and parliamentary hearings about privacy violations in Facebook's app and service partner ecosystem, EU Court of Justice judgments on joint responsibility of platforms and platform users, and the rise of smartphone app ecosystems where app behaviour is governed by app distribution platforms and operating systems, all show that platform policies can make or break the enjoyment of privacy by users. In this article, we examine these developments and explore the question of what can and should be the role of platforms in protecting data privacy of their users.The article first distinguishes the different roles that platforms can have in ensuring respect for data privacy in relevant ecosystems. These roles include governing access to data, design of relevant interfaces and privacy mechanisms, setting of legal and technical standards, policing behaviour of the platform's (business) users, coordinating responsibility for privacy issues between platform users and the platform, and direct and indirect enforcement of a platform's data privacy standards on relevant players. At a higher level, platforms can also perform a role by translating different international regulatory requirements into platform policies, thereby facilitating compliance of apps in different regulatory environments. And in all of this, platforms are striking a balance between ensuring the respect for data privacy in data-driven environments on the one hand and optimization of the value and business opportunities connected to the platform and underlying data for users of the platform on the other hand.After this analysis of platforms’ roles in protecting privacy, the article turns to the question of what should this role be and how to better integrate platforms in the current legal frameworks for data privacy in Europe and the US. The article will argue for a compromise between direct regulation of platforms and mere self-regulation, in arguing that platforms should be required to make official disclosures about their privacy-related policies and practices for their respective ecosystems. These disclosures should include statements about relevant conditions for access to data and the platform, the platform's standards with respect to privacy and the way in which these standards ensure or facilitate compliance with existing legal frameworks by platform users, and statements with respect to the risks of abuse of different data sources and platform tools and actions taken to prevent or police such abuses. We argue that such integration of platforms in current regulatory frameworks is both feasible and desirable. It would make the role that platforms already have in practice more explicit. This would help to highlight best practices, create more accountability and could save significant regulatory and compliance resources in bringing relevant information together in one place. In addition, it could provide clarity for business users of platforms, who are now sometimes confronted with restrictive decisions by platforms in ways that lack transparency and oversight.     

云计算服务平台适用避风港规则的局限性及其破解

相较于其他的网络服务提供者,云计算平台在技术特征上具有服务的糅合性。云平台需要遵循“回避用户内容”的伦理要求,同时具有“糅合服务层级”的实践样态,导致其在适用避风港规则时在主体适格性和对策可能性等方面存在局限。我国应当坚持避风港规则在平台知识产权治理中的原有地位,作为回应,建议将以云平台为代表的新型网络服务提供者在立法中加以明确,强化避风港规则的包容性。必要措施上,秉承比例原则的思路,对于一般侵权行为,云平台可以采取相对缓和的“三振出局”结合合同责任的“分段式措施”;只有对于重复侵权、恶意侵权等情节严重的行为,方能采取“釜底抽薪”式的制裁手段。     

大数据时代网络谣言的合作规制

大数据时代对网络谣言的规制,既是机遇也是挑战。谣言借助网络的手段,无论是传播的方式、手段以及谣言的表现形式都会发生巨大而又深刻的变化。针对网络谣言规制已形成道德规制、法律规制、技术规制三种模式,但各有优劣,应当引入合作规制理念。在网络谣言规制主体上除了政府,还应强化网络服务商的监管责任,依靠其他社会组织,动员社会广泛参与,进行合作治理。在网络谣言治理方式的选择上,采取多元的治理方式,要坚持法治手段为底线,道德熏陶为引导、网络技术手段为保障的整合方式,从而形成制度合力来应对网络谣言。     

How platforms govern users’ copyright-protected content: Exploring the power of private ordering and its implications

Online platforms provide primary points of access to information and other content in the digital age. They foster users’ ability to share ideas and opinions while offering opportunities for cultural and creative industries. In Europe, ownership and use of such expressions is partly governed by a complex web of legislation, sectoral self- and co-regulatory norms. To an important degree, it is also governed by private norms defined by contractual agreements and informal relationships between users and platforms. By adopting policies usually defined as Terms of Service and Community Guidelines, platforms almost unilaterally set use, moderation and enforcement rules, structures and practices (including through algorithmic systems) that govern the access and dissemination of protected content by their users. This private governance of essential means of access, dissemination and expression to (and through) creative content is hardly equitable, though. In fact, it is an expression of how platforms control what users – including users-creators – can say and disseminate online, and how they can monetise their content.As platform power grows, EU law is adjusting by moving towards enhancing the responsibility of platforms for content they host. One crucial example of this is Article 17 of the new Copyright Directive (2019/790), which fundamentally changes the regime and liability of “online content-sharing service providers” (OCSSPs). This complex regime, complemented by rules in the Digital Services Act, sets out a new environment for OCSSPs to design and carry out content moderation, as well as to define their contractual relationship with users, including creators. The latter relationship is characterized by significant power imbalance in favour of platforms, calling into question whether the law can and should do more to protect users-creators.This article addresses the power of large-scale platforms in EU law over their users’ copyright-protected content and its effects on the governance of that content, including on its exploitation and some of its implications for freedom of expression. Our analysis combines legal and empirical methods. We carry our doctrinal legal research to clarify the complex legal regime that governs platforms’ contractual obligations to users and content moderation activities, including the space available for private ordering, with a focus on EU law. From the empirical perspective, we conducted a thematic analysis of most versions of the Terms of Services published over time by the three largest social media platforms in number of users – Facebook, Instagram and YouTube – so as to identify and examine the rules these companies have established to regulate user-generated content, and the ways in which such provisions shifted in the past two decades. In so doing, we unveil how foundational this sort of regulation has always been to platforms’ functioning and how it contributes to defining a system of content exploitation.