[author]Changshan Ma

[content]

Confirmation of identity and guarantee of rights of digital citizens

*Written by Changshan Ma

Professor at East China University of Political Science and Law

Member of the Academic Advisory Committee of the China Institute for Social-Legal Studies of Shanghai Jiao Tong University

Abstract: Digital existence has become the basic attribute and core mechanism of human life, and the issue of digital citizenship has arisen as a result. Digital citizen is the digital embodiment and digital expression of natural citizens, carrying the citizenship, action logic and rights and obligations in digital public life. The imbalance between digital empowerment and technological empowerment has led to digital citizens encountering the dilemma of mechanism of deviation, which is specifically manifested in the marginalization of digital citizens in the platform framework, the deviation of digital citizens in the algorithmic decision-making, the objectification of digital citizens in the digital control, the disablement of digital citizens in the technological empowerment, and the dehumanization of digital citizens in the technological rationality, and so on. The mechanism of deviation of digital citizens poses a serious challenge to citizens' equality and freedom, fundamental rights and values of democratic rule of law. To dissolve the mechanism of deviation of digital citizens and strengthen the rule of law-based protection of rights of digital citizens, and maintain fairness and justice in the digital society, there is a need to adhere to the principle of the "put people first" digital rule of law, to achieve the legal confirmation of digital citizenship, to build an inclusive and co-governance digital democracy mechanism, and to enhance the literacy capacity of digital citizens.

In today's era, driven by the information revolution, natural persons or individual citizens are increasingly presented as "digital persons" or "digital citizens", and the connotation and extension of the rights of natural persons (citizens) are undergoing a profound digital reshaping, and "digital rights" have emerged. At present, the realization of digital rights is encountering many dilemmas and serious challenges, which requires people to concentrate on "taking digital citizenship rights seriously" in the same way as "taking rights seriously", and to put the identification of digital citizens and the guarantee of their rights on the agenda.

The Generation of the Age of Digital Citizenship

With the deep integration and development of networked, digital and intelligent technologies, human society has entered a digital era in which "everything is digital and everything is computable", and people's way of existence and the relationship of production and life have encountered subversive reconstruction, and digital citizenship has emerged.

(1) Identity change of digital existence

Nowadays, data in units of bits is rapidly replacing atoms as the basic element of human society, and "computation is no longer only related to computers, it determines our survival". Formally, digital existence is mainly a new way for people to work, live and learn in digital space, but in essence, the digital environment has become everywhere, and it is based on analytical perception and computation, networked ubiquitous association, intelligent game evolution, increasingly forming a complex "virtual and real world" and "information-physical-social" system. As a result, digital existence is no longer a simple mapping of traditional life, but has become the basic attribute and core mechanism of human life, which inevitably triggers a change in the subjective identity of human beings.

1. Digitization of natural persons

The information revolution has changed people's way of living, people's behaviors’ are more and more realized online, and a large amount of identity data, relationship data, behavioral data, image data, voice data, etc. are generated every day, and "personal information or data become the raw material for big data and artificial intelligence applications, and people thus acquire a new form of existence, the digital person". Not only has data profiling, behavioral prediction, and emotional computing become a normal part of life, but the "network of bodies" has also enabled the interactive processing of in vivo data and networked systems, at which point "the whole of humanity can be viewed as a single data-processing system, with each individual being a chip within it". With the accelerated iteration of emerging technologies, brain-computer interfaces have made it possible to create "cyborgs", digital technologies have created a "person in the middle" behind the virtual image, and the "metaverse" seeks to integrate existing information technologies to develop a holographic digital world that is parallel to the physical world, forming an interoperable, immersive and interactive "digital self". As a result, "the self is correspondingly fragmented and decentralized, leaving only multiple digitised portraits of the self (or parts of the self) based on multiple databases, activated on the basis of choice, convenience, relevance, usability, etc., thus further increasing the fluidity and malleability of the new subjective environment". If the transition from ape to man was the first major leap in the history of human development, it could also be argued that the transition from natural to digital man could be the second major leap in the history of human development.

2. Digitalization of social relationships

Accompanied by the deepening and accelerating digital transformation, human society increasingly presents a state of life in which everything is digitalized, linked over time and space, and operated intelligently. Every one, every social interaction, every social relationship in daily life is deeply embedded in the digital ecology of data analysis and algorithmic modelling, where "any organism is sustained and survives because it has the means to acquire, use, preserve and transmit information". The essence of this phenomenon is "a fundamental re-ontologizing of the infosphere and its inhabitants". People's modes of production and life and social relationships are no longer confined to the "naturalistic" mode of traditional industrial and commercial societies, but show the "computationalistic" mode of digital societies; classified evaluation, data profiling, precise analysis, predictive guidance, personalized recommendation, algorithmic decision-making, etc., have profoundly altered and shaped people's behaviors and values, and have constructed digital identities and digital personalities in social relationships.

3. Digitalization of government

Digital government is developed on the basis of government informatization, but now digital government construction is no longer an instrumental technology empowerment strategy, but an upgrade process of mechanism reshaping, system reconstruction and model exploration. Under the reform concept of "government as a platform, citizens as users" and the mechanism framework of "digital organs", digital business processes, ubiquitous public services, intelligent administrative law enforcement have been formed, and judicial organs have also carried out business process reengineering, organizational structure reshaping and litigation system reform, thus realizing the overall transformation from the government form of "physical space" to the government form of "digital space". Although the "digital space" government will not completely replace, let alone eliminate the "physical space" government, but it will greatly compress and change the survival state of traditional government, form four dimensions of digital administration, digital services, digital citizens and digital society, and explore the potential of digital government to improve governance quality "according to the behavior, citizenship, service and social nature of public values". Based on this, citizens' rights and responsibilities naturally appear in digital space and digital life, and the counterparty of digital government and digital institutions must be digital citizens, which is undoubtedly an important trend of the times.

In short, whether in private life, social interactions, or the public sphere, the digital identity of individuals is generated in the process of comprehensive digitalization. This digital identity can be manifested as both a "digital person" carrying civil relations and a "digital citizen" carrying public relations. The birth of digital identity will have an important impact on everyone's life and rights, and will also profoundly shape the new order of digital society.

（2）The theoretical logic of digital citizenship

In recent years, based on the trend of digital survival, digital government strategy and the need to protect people's rights, the United Nations, the European Union and major countries in the world have actively responded to topics such as digital citizenship education and digital citizenship. The Court of Justice of the European Union has also developed a prototype of European digital citizenship to address growing digital challenges. However, these policy responses are based on the basic point of natural citizenship, aiming to enable natural citizens to acquire digital capabilities, promote their participation in digital life and demonstrate digital value, so they see digital citizens more as digital extensions of natural citizens, and in fact, digital citizenship has more complex personality attributes and subject logic.

1. The "mirror" of digital citizenship

In two-dimensional space, the mirror image of an object (or two-dimensional figure) is the virtual image of the object reflected in a plane mirror. In Foucault's heterotopian theory, the mirror image has a deeper philosophical metaphor, that is, the mirror allows me to see myself in a place where I am not present, which is a kind of "utopia"; And when my gaze in the mirror looks from the depths of virtual space, I am a real and unreal illusion in the mirror, which has the dual attributes of utopia and heterotopia. Here, heterotopia is a multi-interactive otherspace that is both illusory and real. If we look at the digital life we live in according to this metaphorical logic, then people will have to shuttle through the dual space of virtual and real isomorphism every day, and they will present the "two human natures" of biology/digital. Virtual space reflects what people think and think and what they do every day, but this is a real digital footprint, a twin digital "mirror", a richer and more concrete heterotopia. However, the reflection effect of digital mirrors is significantly different from the physical mirror in Foucault's theory, which is mainly reflected in the following aspects: (1) asynchrony, that is, the digital footprint does not disappear due to the "departure" of the biological self, and the biological self cannot clearly see, know and control the digital self; (2) Inconsistency, that is, the digital mirror does not present a symmetrical physical mapping, a biological self may have several digital selves, they are fragmented and fluid, they are different from the other space of many data processors, and the clarity and control of the digital self depend on the amount of data and computing power held by the data processor; (3) interoperability, that is, the biological self and the digital self are closely related and can interact and influence, such as customers can request the platform to delete personal data, and the platform can also guide customers through algorithmic recommendations; (4) Foreign intervention, that is, many times (such as in the process of data transaction and processing and utilization) there will be multiple third parties to share data, identify and mine the digital self, and induce and manipulate the biological self to a certain extent through information feeding, algorithm control and so on. In this way, a complex heterogeneous interactive mirror is formed, and the digital identity at this time is not only the digital mapping and corresponding matching of the individual, but also the separation from the individual and the sneak anti-plastic. It can be seen that digital identity is not an intuitive reflection and "rigid" portable image of a natural person (citizen) visible to the naked eye, a dichotomy between things and me, but an "active" digital avatar that is integrated and interacts with a natural person (citizen), and its essence is the digital expression of the will, behavior and relationship of a natural person (citizen). In a sense, this is a digital revolution of natural persons or citizenship, where people enter digital life practices and realize digital life values through active digital presentation (digital identity, digital trajectory), active digital expression (digital behavior, digital image) and interactive digital communication (digital participation, digital relationship).

2. The dual dimension of digital citizenship

Digital citizenship is the dynamic mapping of citizenship, roles and behaviors in the digital space, a twin "copy" of a citizen in the physical space, a digitized citizen or the digitization of citizenship. In the digital age, digital citizens "form an important part of individual citizens", which has a twofold dimension.

First,digital citizenship is the digital presentation and extension of citizens' responsibilities, rights and interests. Today, every citizen has a digital identity parallel to his or her natural identity, and people can participate in public life, make digital expressions, implement digital behaviors, integrate into digital interactions and so on.  In a virtual and real digital society, so as to acquire digital capabilities, enjoy digital rights, abide by digital ethics and assume digital responsibilities. Digital citizenship is broader and richer than traditional civil rights. Especially in the fields of data information, online participation, algorithmic decision-making, and digital supervision, the core of digital citizenship rights lies in "realizing the simultaneous innovation and empowerment of physical world citizenship and digital world citizenship through the transmission process of the digital world to the physical world, and empowering the intelligent development of real society". Digital citizenship reflects the two sides of citizenship, represents the digital pattern of citizens' rights and obligations, and reflects the duality of space and form.

Second,digital citizenship has moved from the "two-party" contract theory to the "tripartite" theory. Based on the platform-based social operation mode, the previous dual architecture of "government-citizen" and "public power-private rights" has shifted to the three-way architecture of "government-platform-user" and "public power-private power (rights)-private rights", and carries a new type of digital governance relationship. The rapid rise of commercial platforms has increasingly highlighted the attributes of public infrastructure and played the role of "gatekeeper", and laws and regulations have also set the main responsibility of the platform and the governance power within the platform. The platform "controls the supply, allocation and use of data resources, as well as the rule system, and can dominate and influence the behavior patterns of citizens", thus becoming a public governance subject with social power. The platform's content censorship and banning behavior are not only based on contractual agreements, but also have certain public law significance and consequences. At this time, user rights no longer simply belong to the private domain, but add the characteristics of the public domain, so they can be regarded as a reasonable extension of digital civil rights or "quasi-civil rights", and the dual regulation of public law and private law applies.

3. The turn of the times in the view of civic theory

In the long process of the development of citizenship theory, different theoretical models such as "liberal citizen", "republican citizen", "communitarian citizen" and "pluralistic citizen" have been formed, but this distinction based on industrial and commercial logic, physical space-time view and biological human attributes has encountered severe challenges from contemporary digital logic.

First, the inherent tension of digital citizenship is highlighted. An important feature of the digital age is the birth of digital citizenship twins based on traditional natural citizenship to adapt to the public life of a "virtual society". Digital citizenship is both anonymous, such as WeChat nicknames, but also visible, such as data portraits and identity puzzles; It is both mobile, such as digital citizens who can surf the Internet without boundaries, and human, such as digital citizens can eventually be attributed to the nationality status of natural citizens; It is not only pluralistic and heterogeneous, manifested as value tearing and individual polarization that is common in online public opinion, but also homogeneous reinforcement, manifested as the convergence of the same and the exclusion of others. These are problems that traditional citizenship theories have not faced.

Second, traditional technology "provides the material framework for modernity", while information technology disintegrates this material framework, and national governance and social governance are transformed into digital governance. The relationship structure, behavior mode and operation mechanism of digital government and digital citizens all need to rely on platforms, data and algorithms, which gives "public domain-private domain" and "public power-private rights" new digital attributes and digital forms, deducing digital logic such as data utilization and rights protection, algorithm administration and digital democracy, platform functions and regulatory logic. These public, social, and private digital rights and digital rights will show boundary fluidity with diversified and scenario-based data rights confirmation.

Finally, the core value of industrial and commercial society is distributive justice for identity, wealth, opportunities, conditions, etc., but after entering the digital age, data and algorithms have become the key elements and important forces for allocating various resources and shaping social order, and the naturalistic distributive justice has turned to the computational justice of dataism. The core issue that the computational justice of dataism needs to be dealt with is the meaning, scope and extent to which data information can be processed, used and analyzed and calculated, and at what value, function and scale should be regulated, balanced and protected; It aims to determine the legitimacy and rationality of data utilization, algorithm decision-making and platform operation, establish the justice scale of digital identity, digital behavior and digital relationship, and become a value principle for handling the relationship between digital government and digital citizens. Citizenship theory, based on digital justice, breaks through the traditional framework of citizenship theory. The concept of citizenship based on digital justice is a digitalist view of citizenship based on digital identity and digital relations, emphasizing digital autonomy and digital rights. It is different from the liberal view of citizenship based on individualism and liberal spirit and emphasizing individual rights and freedoms; Different from the republican civic view based on civic virtue and republican spirit, which emphasizes political identity, public participation and responsibility ethics; It is also different from the communitarian citizenship concept and pluralistic citizenship concept based on community connection and cultural symbiosis values, emphasizing diversity and inclusiveness and community awareness.

In summary, digital citizens are the digital avatars and digital expressions of natural citizens, carrying the relationship between citizenship, action logic, rights and obligations in digital public life. The theoretical reconstruction of digital citizenship will provide important theoretical support and value guidance for the construction of digital rule of law government.

The institutional dissociation of digital citizenship

From a worldwide perspective, the construction of digital governments in various countries has generally undergone a transformation from simply providing information and services to "digital intelligent governance" that substantially promotes citizen participation and limited interaction. During this period, digital citizenship for the general public has also developed due to policy and institutional support. However, at present, the support plans of the United Nations and most countries for digital citizenship are mostly policy and strategic confirmations, rather than ethical and institutional confirmations. It is based more on the perception and recognition of the position of natural citizenship than on the understanding, recognition and protection of the attributes of digital citizenship. This will inevitably lead to some twists and turns and difficulties in the development of digital citizens, among which the most prominent is the "institutional wandering" tendency of digital citizens. In other words, a generative, continuous and systematic potential mechanism formed based on the application of digital technology has caused the identity impairment and loss of rights of digital citizens, aggravated the alien state between natural citizens and digital citizens, and even made digital citizenship a technical means and way to induce and control natural citizens, rather than the digital empowerment extension and digital realization of natural citizens, which is obviously contrary to the development requirements of the digital age and the order needs of the digital society.

（1）The marginalization of digital citizens in platform architectures

As digital government becomes increasingly administratively dominant, the modern administrative model based on the spirit of enlightenment has also begun to undergo profound changes and overall transformation. Modern government unfolds in the contractual relationship and political logic between the government and citizens, and it has to undertake constitutional obligations such as protecting citizens' lives, property, freedoms and security. With the iterative transformation from digital government 1.0 to digital government 3.0, digital technology has begun to reshape the government architecture, form a new digital governance model, and transform the political contract between the government and citizens into a service contract. Different from the previous government-centric administrative structure, platform government "attracts, convenes, matches, coordinates and supervises multiple actors to cooperate in public administration" by providing stable and open places, as well as basic components such as rules, technology, information, and services, thereby providing convenient services for citizens and implementing agile governance. In this process, the government mainly plays an intermediate role, serving bilateral subjects. Correspondingly, this builds a three-way relationship between platform entities (government departments), supply entities (service merchants), and demand subjects (citizen users). For example, citizens can do government affairs on Alibaba's cloud computing platform like Taobao, and government websites can also accept Alipay for online payment and payment.

The new model of platform government no longer sees the government as a "vending machine" for the provision of public services, but as an "open bazaar" that provides people with a variety of choices, which means that the government will change from an active interventionist role to a passive neutral role. The new model of platform government aims to reduce the regulatory hierarchy, change the all-powerful control strategy, promote citizens' self-expression and interaction, and enhance the benign interaction between the government and the people, so as to improve the scientific and democratic level of government decision-making. The construction goals of digital government include three aspects: first, the digitalization of government business, which is embodied in the forms of "one-network office, one-network management, one-network coordination", "palm office", "fingertip office" and "running at most once"; The second is the digitization of administrative actions, such as "Internet +" supervision, penetrating supervision, and "double present" law enforcement; The third is the digitalization of law enforcement agencies, that is, promoting the development of traditional "physical organs" in the direction of digitalization, delocalization, and intangibility, and realizing the digital operation and digital collaboration of organs. In this way, in the process of digital government construction, the ubiquitous provision of public services and the "diffusion" of government existence have been formed.

The platform-based architecture of digital government has complex two sides, although it benefits from technological empowerment and realizes mechanism innovation, but it also brings problems such as marginalization and powerlessness of digital citizens, which is undoubtedly contrary to the value orientation of digital government construction.

First, there is a lack of citizen participation in the development and design of platform-based governments. The design and development of platform-based government is only a cooperation between the government and technology companies to issue/contract, and even "crowdsourcing" cannot provide too many opportunities for interactive participation, power sharing, and "joint production" between the government and citizens. Moreover, the cooperation between the government and technology companies is mainly controlled by the government, and enterprises are easy to put the needs of the government first and ignore the needs of the public, and there may be rent-seeking phenomena in government-enterprise cooperation.

Second, citizens are underrepresented in the agenda of platform government. The original intention of platform government is to provide information and service supply for the interactive cooperation and innovative development of various subjects based on service, neutrality, bilateral and digital construction, and then develop new ways to use the Internet and mobile programs to support citizen participation. However, these open, polycentric interactions exist more in the public service and rarely expand in terms of political participation and digital democracy. In terms of practical results, the kind of interactive discussion and policy participation that people expect has not yet been generated simultaneously in the government's agenda. Relevant extraterritorial experience also shows that due to the lack of substantive institutional guarantees and government guidance and incentives, it is difficult for data itself to directly act on the connection and interaction between the government and citizens, resulting in the form of citizen participation being greater than the content".

Finally, citizens are unable to oversee digital administration. The digital administration of platform government brings better performance, but it also creates the isolation of government employees from the public. Based on the neutrality, bilaterality and digitality of the platform, in the process of digital administration, there may be problems such as official inaction, false action, lazy action, and random action. Digital citizens are often helpless in this regard.

(2)The detachment of digital citizens in algorithmic decision-making

In the era of "algorithm is king", automated administration aims to promote the informatization, dataization and self-process of the operation process of administrative power, so as to improve administrative efficiency and administrative accuracy, reduce the human factor of discretion, and finally form a power supervision and technical control system based on data and algorithms. In the algorithmic decision-making of automated administration, there is a potential problem of digital citizens leaving the scene, which is manifested in the following aspects.

First, the counterpart in algorithmic decision-making is absent. Automated administration mainly converts the administrative decision-making process into a data information calculation process through the digitalization of administrative decision-making elements, the coding of administrative rule programs, and the discretionary modeling, so as to realize the process replacement of "human" decision-making. On the surface, the objects to be replaced include both administrative law enforcement personnel and administrative counterparts, and the decision-making process is entrusted to objective and neutral algorithms, but in fact, it is mainly the counterparties that are replaced. Because the set of procedures handed over to the algorithm is designed and completed under the leadership of administrative organs, few industry experts, citizen representatives and other social subjects participate in it, and it is difficult to effectively implement and embed the principle of power constraints. At the same time, algorithms are not absolutely neutral, algorithm black boxes, algorithm biases, algorithm abuse, algorithm errors and so on, are all well-known technical risks. This means that in terms of formal legality, it is difficult to ensure that algorithm decisions comply with the requirements of laws and regulations; In terms of the legitimacy of the democratic process, the "logical hidden layer" and "data barrier" of algorithmic decision-making will lead to the failure of the public's right to know, right to dissent and right to suggest.

Second, the derogation of rights in algorithmic decision-making. The algorithm administrative process is a process of mechanism reengineering and system reshaping, and a large number of administrative elements and rules will be transformed into an automated decision-making system through data processing and algorithm application. In this conversion process, data cleaning and annotation, knowledge map drawing, parameter setting, algorithm modeling, training correction, application demonstration and other links are inevitably affected by the value preference and basic interests of government planning and design. Most of the code transformations of administrative principles, legal rules, discretion, etc. are based on the position and value judgment of administrative organs. As a result, these algorithmic decision-making systems usually carry out target compression, program simplification and technical rewriting under conditions conducive to the operation of public power, which leads to the erosion and derogation of administrative rule of law and civil rights.

Third, interaction resolution in algorithmic decision-making. Algorithmic decision-making is a kind of "unmanned intervention" automated administrative process, although it improves the efficiency of law enforcement, but it is difficult for administrative counterparts to meet law enforcers face-to-face, timely statements, defenses and other interactive dialogues, law enforcement personnel can not do flexible handling according to the situation, even if the administrative counterpart makes statements and defenses afterwards, it is difficult to resist "machine law enforcement". This creates difficulties in discretionary judgment and law enforcement supervision, which is contrary to the initial goal of digital government construction.

Fourth, there is a regulatory imbalance in algorithmic decision-making. Algorithmic decision-making is a non-artificial, invisible, closed-loop technical operation, which has been separated from the traditional administrative environment, difficult to be supervised and controlled, and difficult to become the object of reconsideration and litigation, which will inevitably lead to the suspension or hollowing out of the principle of due process in administrative law, and the remedy channel will also fail to some extent. If algorithmic decision-making cannot be effectively constrained and regulated, it "is very likely to erode or even replace the control of law over administration, resulting in the so-called 'rule of law' alienation into 'rule of algorithms'."

The absence of counterparties, dediment, interaction resolution, and regulatory imbalance in algorithmic decision-making are like an "electronic wall", cutting off the direct connection between digital government and digital citizens. The algorithmic decision-making of digital government was originally intended to create a more objective, scientific, accurate and fast automated administrative model that can leave traces throughout the process, so as to put law enforcement power into a "data cage" and achieve a better power constraint effect than the traditional "institutional iron cage", but in its actual operation, it has formed an "algorithm cage" that restricts digital citizens, and even caused digital citizens to be locked by the "digital decision-making system". At this time, people are not confronted with a state apparatus, but with an "impersonal and opaque algorithmic system." The serious alienation of public life undoubtedly deserves serious attention and deep reflection.

（3）The objectification of digital citizens in digital control

The alien "mirror" of digital identity allows people to obtain the ability to transcend physical time and space and break through biological limits, and also brings social risks for data processors to identify and precipitate "digital humans" and then manipulate "biological humans". It should be said that social control exists in any era, but control in previous societies was mainly based on institutional forms and physical/biological means, belonging to immediate situations that people could personally feel. After entering the digital age, data, information and algorithms began to break the traditional order form and mechanism structure, transcend the physical, biological and external control methods, and create a new digital control form that is digital, virtual and internal. This has certainly achieved agile governance that is unimaginable and impossible in traditional society, but it also brings serious negative problems.

1. Monitor the objectification of collection

In today's digital society, people, things, things, interactions, relationships, and processes are all in the process of accelerating digitalization. In the face of digital authorities, automated administration, and online government services, the public needs to carry out necessary identity authentication, information provision, and information interaction. In areas of daily life such as transportation, social security, accommodation, entertainment, and community governance, a full-scenario, all-weather electronic monitoring environment and grid governance system have also been established. "In our world, information sentinels crisscross the world." Governments and online platforms hold control of data and technology, and "citizens and users are producers and dependents of data." People become the object of unconscious monitoring and data collection, which is not only the source of data generation and aggregation, but also the basis for information processing and utilization, but people themselves are not within their control. While surveillance collection is becoming more common and routine, it also has the potential to point or hint at the function of "the data collected through this monitoring makes it impossible for us not to choose the options preferred by the monitor". In this way, people gradually become accustomed to using the rules of the monitor to regulate their behavior and discipline themselves, and the objectification of surveillance collection will become more and more intense.

2. Objectification on computational analysis

The digital age has created an "all-information" society, where data is generated every moment in production, life and human behavior, and expressed, exchanged and used in the form of information to create value. This not only produces the "transcendence" that breaks through the physical space barrier, but also enables the visualization of computational analysis. In fact, all kinds of analysis and prediction systems, personalized recommendation systems, scheduling decision-making systems, etc., are basically embedded with data labels and data portrait processes. If these "portraits" have no boundaries and are not constrained, people's identity data, relationship data, whereabouts data, property data, emotional data, and so on, will be aggregated in various ways and ways to become specific objects to be observed, analyzed and pivoted, and digital citizens will thus become "people who can calculate with numbers". Identities, relationships, characteristics and whereabouts that were originally vague and unpredictable can become clear and transparent in an instant after calculation and analysis, but I am unaware of them. Information processors who master data and algorithms can adopt a "stealthy" way to "hunt for technology" people, things and things in life at any time, while people with purposeful rationality become "captives of science and technology and tools of data domination".

3. Objectification on perceptual control

In the past social life, people mainly relied on social observation, personal experience, dialogue and communication to perceive and understand the world. After entering the digital age, a huge amount of data and information has emerged in daily life, making people overwhelmed and difficult to choose; The proportion of people experiencing and interacting in person is decreasing, and the number of remote and online interactions is increasing. WeChat, Weibo and other channels have become the main channels for people to obtain information, contact society, and understand the world, and the phenomenon of "information feeding" has also quietly emerged. Information feeding can be a bigger problem than data bias, the digital divide, and algorithmic discrimination. In other words, the information distribution of new media and digital platforms has become a kind of power behavior, which forms an information cocoon through information filtering and personalized push, limiting people's information visibility, preference angle and observation window; It presents a filtered "one-sided" world to a specific object, a world that wants specific objects to see, but specific objects think that they see a real and complete world. Information feeding, which quietly influences people's experience, perception, and judgment in a technological way, exercises power by controlling people's perception of the world, and essentially uses "a stable and broad ability to get others to do things that they were previously unwilling or unable to do, or not to do things they would otherwise do." For example, in the US presidential election, platform companies such as Facebook and Twitter used data portraits and personalized pushes to manipulate voters' consciousness and behavior, and a "new political form revolution" also took place in the Brexit decision-making process. With data analysis and algorithm systems, designers can encode, interpret and analyze social structures, power relations, etc. according to their target preferences, and then transmit the results back to society, thereby profoundly affecting the way society operates, and people become objects of "perception control".

4. Automate objectification on execution

The automated operation mechanism with algorithmic decision-making as the core is not only applied in the fields of law enforcement and justice, but also in the field of business governance. When algorithms partially or completely replace humans and become the "subjects" that issue instructions and make decisions, data owners, enterprise decision-making subjects, and labor subjects will lose a certain degree of control, and algorithmic decision-making will evolve into "algorithm manipulation", at least "control through algorithms". For example, in the Beidou Disconnection Case, "automation technology compressed the individual justice and basic human rights protected by law, and excluded discretion, personalization, and reasoning", during which there was no opportunity for administrative counterparts to raise objections, and democratic participation and supervision mechanisms were obviously absent; As early as 2019, Amazon's internal AI system could track the work efficiency of every employee in the logistics and warehousing department, and then automatically generate firing instructions; In 2021, Russian online payment services used algorithms to determine which employees were "unengaged and inefficient" and fired 147 employees. In the process of administrative decision-making, when the original "human-human" relationship is transformed into a "human-machine-human" relationship, it is easy to cause the "materialization" of the relative person and bring serious negative consequences.

On the issue of human subjectivity and its alienation, Freud, Jung, Fromm and others analyzed the deep psychological mechanisms such as "unconscious", "collective unconscious" and "social unconscious". Marcuse delves deeper into the unidirectional development of advanced industrial societies, arguing that advanced industrial societies deprive them of substantive freedoms with superficial "freedom" and make people tame citizens of "one-dimensional". In the digital age, ordinary people become single data producers who do not understand technology, while governments, technology companies and platform companies become data processors who master technology. These data processors can indeed provide people with efficient public services, convenient consumption environments and immersive entertainment experiences, but due to unclear data boundaries, unclear ownership, and insufficient rules, a large number of data processing and modeling and calculation processes are not open, transparent, and unexplainable, ordinary people are trapped in the status of "processed persons" and digital control environments. In particular, those digital intelligence governance systems that "know in advance, control in advance, know the whole process, and control the whole process", as well as its digital intelligence governance functions such as "telescope", "microscope" and "radar", put the people in a "naked" situation where there is nowhere to be avoided, making them a "one-way transparent person" who is more powerless and vulnerable than "one-way" citizens. What is more serious is that once people have a sticky dependence on the digital and automated mechanisms provided by data processors, a "electronic cage that no one can escape" will be built in society and potential digital coercion will be formed. From this point of view, "how data-based governance technology has changed the essence of human beings" really needs deep questioning.

（4）The incapacitation of digital citizenship in technological empowerment

Networking, digitalization and intelligence have carried out all-round digital empowerment and technical empowerment for human production and life, breaking the original physical time and space limitations, and enabling people to obtain unprecedented remote presence capabilities, visual analysis capabilities based on data and algorithms, and accurate and agile decision-making capabilities. However, the "incapacitation" of digital citizenship has also arisen in the process.

1. The apparent imbalance of empowerment

Platforms are the main carriers and important channels for digital empowerment in various fields, business platforms can achieve "winner-take-all", government platforms can achieve "penetrating supervision", they all have huge empowerment space, while users (citizens) lack the conditions and opportunities to obtain empowerment. At the same time, the information revolution has changed the order structure of industrial and commercial society, released huge virtual space "enclaves" and digital development dividends, and formed a kind of technological empowerment. Although citizens are the beneficiaries of this technological empowerment, they can enjoy a convenient and efficient digital life, access to the Internet, the right to data portability, virtual property rights, etc., but it is difficult to have the opportunity to participate in the process of data processing and algorithmic decision-making. Whether in the process of digital empowerment or technological empowerment, individual citizens are clearly vulnerable to platform enterprises and digital governments as data processors and algorithm controllers.

2. Multidimensional presentation of the digital divide

The digital divide is not only a problem that older groups may encounter, but also social groups with greater understanding and acceptance. The digital divide does not only mean not being able to operate digital devices and being unfamiliar with digital approaches and methods, but also limited ability to survive, public participation, etc. Uneven digital development can lead to age gaps, as well as class, geographical and even country divides. The imbalance in empowerment may lead to the emergence of digital survival divide, digital participation gap, digital development gap, etc. For example, the replacement of human labor by intelligent robots may cause a large number of unemployment, and even form a "useless class" and "digital outcast"; In the process of digital governance with more and more advanced digital technology, more and more complete infrastructure, and more and more participation methods, substantive deep government-private interaction and cooperative governance are rare. In short, the imbalance between digital empowerment and technological empowerment may have a substantial negative impact on digital democratic participation and digital citizenship.

3. The risk of "disability" of digital citizenship

Citizenship and civil rights are institutional arrangements within the framework of the modern legal system. Rights and capacity for behavior are the prerequisites and basic guarantees for people to enter social life, and they reflect people's biological attributes. Today, people have acquired digital attributes in addition to biological attributes, and the conditions and environment for participation in social life have changed profoundly. In particular, the emergence of the digital survival gap, participation gap, development gap, etc., has seriously eroded people's original rights and behaviors, and if new digital capabilities are lacking, citizens' rights and behaviors will not be enough to cope with and solve the problems of life participation and survival and development in the digital society. This "disability" is not caused by the lack of biological attributes of people, but by the lack of digital attributes caused by the imbalance of technological empowerment. For this reason, the United Nations and many countries have successively proposed project plans aimed at improving the digital literacy of citizens, and China has also put forward the strategic task of "improving the digital literacy of all people" in a timely manner, committed to cultivating the "third ability" of citizens, strengthening citizens' digital public participation, and enabling them to share the dividends of digital development.

（5)The dehumanization of digital citizens in technological rationality

In modern times, people believe in science and advocate democracy, and technological rationality has become one of the fundamental driving forces for the development of modernity. However, the over-inflation of technological rationality also gives rise to alienation. Digital trends show that AI systems have the potential to replace a large number of human manual labor, and algorithmic decision-making will also replace a considerable part of primary mental work. This kind of "machine substitution" is still only a simple and intuitive "dehumanization", its essence is an automation of production and life, and the deep and alarming dehumanization is the generalization of computational logic and technical rationality.

The romantic view of technology, including the theory of technological neutrality, the theory of technological supremacy, and the theory of technological omnipotence, believes that machines will gradually evolve from playing an enhanced and auxiliary role for human beings to playing the role of cognitive subjects, that is, machines will gradually move from the "epistemological edge" to the center of epistemology. There are also some trends of thought, looking forward to and looking forward to the advent of the "singularity" of artificial intelligence surpassing human beings. These ideas invisibly detach from value judgments and ignore human ethics. Technological instrumentalism, technical pragmatism, technical utilitarianism and other tendencies overly believe in and rely on digital technology means to solve problems, resulting in the abuse, misuse and misuse of digital technology. From the intelligence of daily life to the "mind reading" of emotional computing, from personalized recommendation services to "electronic fences" and "digital interceptions", those unpreventable data collections, uncontrolled data portraits, greedy information cocoons, highly generalized monitoring and prediction and early warning disposal, etc., not only "increase the risk of personal privacy and public sector information leakage, but also worsen the fragmentation of social governance."

In the digital age, the human world is embedded with computer logic, which can be efficient, objective, and accurate, but after all, it is only "a machine that does not need to meet any more conditions to generate 'yes' and 'no' binary options." If the electronic traffic police "identify the violation" and issue a ticket, regardless of whether the violation is to avoid greater danger, it will be difficult for people to feel the temperature of the world. Once all problems in all areas are handed over to the machine as much as possible, there will be a mechanical environment of "pressing each other's buttons". To this end, relevant documents or bills of UNESCO, the European Union and other countries have proposed that in core areas of life involving human life, freedom, and human rights, people-to-people should be set up to interact with each other, at least in the process of algorithmic decision-making and machine processing.

The institutional dissociation of digital citizens poses a severe challenge to citizens' equal freedoms, basic rights, and the values of democracy and rule of law. Objectively speaking, it is a common phenomenon in global digital transformation and a systemic challenge caused by the reconstruction of the interest pattern in the process of entering the digital society. In other words, it is fundamentally the inevitable result of the unbalanced development of digital technology, asymmetric digital interests, and unclear boundaries of digital rights in digital transformation, and is a by-product of the immature and imperfect construction of digital rule of law. Therefore, the institutional dissociation of digital citizenship is generally a problem in progress and development, which needs to be solved by further promoting the digital rule of law.

Rule of law guarantee of digital civil rights

In order to effectively deal with issues such as platform monopoly, digital divide, data abuse, and algorithm discrimination, global digital governance has undergone an important shift from "protective exemption" to "regulatory control", and is committed to achieving the digital development goals of inclusiveness, social fairness and people's livelihood. This requires actively promoting the construction of digital rule of law, dissolving the institutional distancing of digital citizens, and realizing inclusive development and digital justice.

(1)Adhere to the "people-oriented" principle of digital rule of law

The main goal of the modern rule of law is to control power and guarantee freedoms. Safeguarding human values and dignity is the leading spirit and fine tradition of modern rule of law. After entering the digital age, the advantages in data and algorithms can penetrate the physical space wall, break through the psychological barrier of biological people, and even perform emotional calculations by means of data profiling, computational analysis, implicit intervention, etc. At this time, it is more necessary to defend the value and dignity of human beings, better control digital power, protect digital freedom, and achieve shared development, and the focus of all this is to effectively curb the abuse of power technology, technology power, and capital technology, confirm and protect digital citizens' rights, and build a digital rule of law order that guides science and technology for good.

To address the challenges posed by global digital transformation to digital citizenship, UNDP's Digital Strategy 2022-2025 clearly states that "human rights will be at the heart of UNDP's digital approach" and that no country, organization or group will be left behind. In addition, the European Declaration of Digital Rights and Principles signed by the European Commission and the European Parliament, and the Blueprint for the Artificial Intelligence Bill of Rights - Making Automated Systems Work for the American People issued by the White House also reaffirm that digital transformation should not lead to the regression of rights, emphasizing the need to create a fair digital environment, realize free choices in the interaction between algorithms and artificial intelligence systems, promote citizen participation in digital public spaces, ensure personal control over data, and protect personal privacy. These are all advocating the principle of "people-oriented" digital governance, and they are also important measures to safeguard the rights of digital citizens. In China, industry norms or regulations such as the "New Generation of Artificial Intelligence Ethical Norms", "Provisions on the Administration of Internet Information Service Algorithm Recommendation", and "Opinions on Strengthening the Ethical Governance of Science and Technology" all clearly require that scientific and technological innovation should take precedence in ethics, improve human welfare, respect the right to life, adhere to fairness and justice, openness and transparency, and correctly exercise power, and prohibit improper exercise of power from infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of natural persons, legal persons and other organizations. This undoubtedly contains the concept of people-oriented, technology for good, and respect for rights. It can be seen that the establishment and implementation of the people-oriented digital rule of law principle has become the basic prerequisite for protecting the rights of digital citizens, which specifically includes the following requirements.

First, adhere to the basic position of humanism and people-centered, effectively balance and guarantee digital government and digital citizens, social rights and civil rights, and digital rights and interests between digital citizens, and maximize the transformation of digital development dividends into digital citizens' rights in accordance with the principle of proportionality, overcome the marginalization of digital citizens in the platform architecture, the departure of digital citizens in algorithmic decision-making, the objectification of digital citizens in digital control, and the incapacitation of digital citizens in technological empowerment. Issues and risks such as the dehumanization of digital citizens in technological rationality and the establishment of an inclusive and shared digital governance order.

Second, effectively curb the technological, instrumental, and formalistic outlook on digital development, actively advocate science and technology for good and good law and good governance, ensure that digital governments, digital platforms and technology companies correctly exercise power in digital governance, put an end to the use of power by technical means, evade regulation and greed for profit, and avoid the misuse, abuse and misuse of data and algorithms.

Third, adhere to the implementation of the "ultimate responsibility system" and "human supervision" mechanisms of human beings. The UN Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence clearly states that "AI systems can never replace the ultimate responsibility and accountability of humans" and that "the final decision should be made by humans when the decision in question has irreversible or irreversible effects or in cases involving a life-and-death decision"; Judicial AI systems should ensure that "the development and use of AI systems is trustworthy, public interest-oriented, and human-centred."

Fourth, frame the application boundary of digital technology. "Not everything that can be calculated is important, and not everything important can be calculated", such as viewing data and algorithms as "telescopes", "microscopes" and "radars", "business dataization, data businessization" in the process of law enforcement, justice and supervision, as well as uncontrolled data portraits, risk predictions, analysis and calculation, etc., will penetrate the last defense of human nature, trigger a data war between data processors, and eventually endanger the bottom line of social order. Only by safeguarding the minimum field of "human nature preservation" and digital human rights can we truly be people-centered and people-oriented, and can digital citizens' rights be duly respected and protected, so as to create a digital civilization ecology and build a digital rule of law order.

（2）Legalize digital citizenship

Confirming the legal status of digital citizens and protecting the basic rights and human rights of digital citizens is undoubtedly an important barrier to prevent the loss of digital citizens' rights and curb the shrinkage of digital citizens' rights.

1. Legalization of digital citizenship

The digital transformation process shows that "technology is creating a democratized planet. On this planet, having a legal digital identity is a fundamental right." However, this process involves not only law, but also ethics and technology, which specifically includes legal normative confirmation, ethical legitimacy certification and technical credible certification.

First, although there are various academic arguments for "electronic humans", "virtual humans", "digital humans" and "digital personalities" in the theoretical circles, and UNESCO and corresponding institutions in the United States, Canada, New Zealand and other countries have also focused on the advocacy, education and research of "digital citizens", there are few sets and arrangements for the legal status, rights and obligations of digital citizens. In China, the Several Provisions of the State Council on Online Government Services, the Implementation Outline for the Construction of a Rule of Law Government (2021-2025), and the Provisions on the Management of Deep Synthesis of Internet Information Services put forward principle requirements for the national unified identity authentication system, unified social credit codes, electronic seals, electronic licenses, etc., but also lack the substantive system confirmation of digital citizenship, which will seriously restrict the practical protection of digital citizens' rights. At present, countries urgently need to institutionally confirm digital citizenship in public law and digital personality rights in private law, and set corresponding rights and obligations to lay the foundation for the rule of law for the protection of digital rights. China can expand the meaning of citizenship in the Constitution by amending the Resident Identity Card Law, and confirm the legal identity and legal status of digital citizens from the legal norms and constitutional system.

Second, citizenship and civil rights must be deeply rooted in the hearts of the people and gain social recognition, which cannot be separated from the drive and support of ethical values. Therefore, it is necessary to interpret the legitimacy, ethical justification and value construction of the citizenship of virtual and real isomorphism in the living space, the subject value of the dual attributes of "bio-digital", and the behavior logic in the human-computer interaction scene, so as to lay the legitimacy foundation for digital citizens and shape the fluid and changeable "digital humans" into rational and responsible digital citizens. Cyberspace has the characteristics of pluralism and flatness, anonymous expression, and freedom of personality, and if there is a lack of moral bottom line and civic ethical constraints, it is easy to breed and amplify "online populism", and various illegal and criminal problems such as online violence and online fraud will follow. In order to protect the rights of digital citizens, it is necessary to build a digital citizen ethic in a timely manner, regulate the order of cyberspace, and shape the digital civilization ecology.

Finally, in the digital space, people will design multiple accounts or identities with different images according to their preferences, and carry out free interaction and digital expression, a credible and unified digital citizenship authentication system is not only an important condition for the establishment of relationships between digital governments, digital citizens, and business platforms, but also the basic guarantee for digital citizens to enter the digital space with a trusted identity for autonomous operation. The digital citizenship authentication system is an important infrastructure of the digital spatial order. The Cybersecurity Law and the Personal Information Protection Law both provide for trusted identity authentication, and the Ministry of Public Security and other departments have also launched a national "Internet +" trusted identity authentication platform. In August 2022, a distributed digital identity management system, "Chang'an Identity Connect", was officially launched and entered the implementation stage, and the legalization of digital citizenship has also received reliable technical support.

2. Effective protection of digital civil rights

The institutional dissociation of digital citizens is fundamentally the inevitable result of the unbalanced development of digital technology, the asymmetry of digital interests, and the unclear boundaries of digital rights in the process of digital transformation. "Digital hegemony is becoming an important issue affecting social governance", and controlling digital power and protecting digital rights has become an important task of digital governance. In this regard, the first is to actively build a management system for digital platforms (including government platforms and commercial platforms), make fair and reasonable arrangements for the rights and obligations of platforms and users (citizens), and effectively confirm and protect digital citizenship and rights, especially based on the duality of digital citizens to safeguard their rights, including the right not to be identified and analyzed by data under the condition of no special law, as well as the right to expression, participation, and suggestion without real names. Second, we should actively build a digital legal system and industry self-discipline norms, and strengthen the effective confirmation and protection of citizens' data rights and digital citizenship on the basis of the classification and hierarchical confirmation of rights authorization for public data, enterprise data, and personal data. The third is to actively explore the remedy system for automated decision-making, give citizens the right to question specific decisions, assessment and prediction of the digital system, and activate and expand relevant judicial mechanisms in a timely manner, and establish judicial relief channels with judicial algorithm auditing as the core, based on procuratorial suggestions for administrative organs, compliance construction of leading enterprises, and support for prosecution. Fourth, based on the role of commercial platforms as "gatekeepers" and their public attributes, commercial platforms adopt a dual regulatory approach based on private law and supplemented by public law, expanding the scope of protection and strengthening the protection of citizens' digital rights.

3. Respect and protect digital human rights

In order to suppress the various adverse consequences caused by digital control and technological rationality, we must actively recognize and confirm digital human rights, maintain humanistic care and human nature in the automated decision-making process, and let the development of technology serve human development and safeguard human dignity and value. The government should actively shoulder the protection obligations and responsibilities of the times for digital human rights, avoid the technicalization and technical power of power in the process of grid governance and digital intelligence governance, and also prevent the proliferation of "AI surveillance" and make people instrumentalized and objectified. As the "gatekeeper" and the subject of quasi-public power (private power), the commercial platform not only has the responsibility to cooperate with the government to protect human rights in the process of national governance platform, but also bears the necessary human rights protection obligations in its own internal governance process. In short, governments, commercial platforms and technology companies should abide by and practice the international ethical norm of "new technologies should provide new means for advocating, defending and exercising human rights, rather than violating human rights" put forward in the United Nations Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, and earnestly respect and protect people's basic human rights such as digital survival, digital freedom, and digital personality.

（3）Build an inclusive and co-governed digital democracy

Online life is a norm in the digital age. In addition to the traditional democratic process of "hall discussion", there is a form of digital democracy relying on digital identity, digital expression and digital participation, which not only shows the logic of administration, governance and rule of law, but also contains scientific logic, calculation logic and information logic. The institutional dissociation of digital citizens is highly technical, and it cannot be simply applied to traditional methods such as "majority decision" to deal with it, and the establishment of an inclusive and co-governed digital democracy mechanism is an effective and realistic solution.

First, build a digital democratic process. Unlike traditional democratic programs in the electoral field, digital democracy is applied in the realms of platforms, data, and algorithms. The specific requirements for building a digital democracy process include: (1) the platform operation mechanism of "one network for all offices, one network for unified management, and one network for coordination" should ensure that the principles of "division of labor and responsibility, mutual cooperation, and mutual restraint" are implemented; (2) Comply with the principle of technical due process, optimize computer program design, improve the fairness, transparency, explainability, consistency and accountability of automated decision-making, and review algorithms with the assistance of professionals, and correct errors in a timely manner; (3) For platform architecture and algorithm design involving major livelihood issues or citizens' basic rights, special expert demonstration and hearing procedures should be set up, and at least in the process of application demonstration, public supervision and review should be accepted; (4) Where the design of automated decision-making procedures in important administrative fields and judicial fields involves the transformation of technical codes for rules and procedures, it shall be reported to the standing committee of the people's congress at the same level for authorization or filing in advance; (5) Data aggregation, data processing and algorithm decision-making should be lawful and compliant and comply with due process, and digital power must not be abused beyond the statutory scope, reasonable purpose or violation of the principle of proportionality; (6) Automated decision-making procedures should provide the public with "manual" options and convenient procedures for returning to "manual" channels; (7) In the digital "agile governance" mechanism, "agile response" channels for public opinions and complaints should be set up to ensure that digital citizens' rights are not eroded by platform operation, automated decision-making and digital control, and effectively eliminate the marginalization, detachment and objectification of digital citizens.

Second, expand participation in digital democracy. Since the 90s of the 20th century, digital democracy has become a new hope for the West to overcome the "democratic deficit" with the rise of digital government, which presents as a form of "direct democracy" of information sharing, flat participation, free expression, direct dialogue, and instant interaction. Some countries are also promoting the transformation of digital governance from "government broadcast mode" to "government-to-people communication mode". However, the deep mechanisms of digital democracy need to be further explored. From the perspective of development trends, digital democracy still cannot change the democratic representative system, but it can greatly improve the democratization of daily life, that is, in most of the daily decision-making process of the government, digital platforms can be used to listen to public demands in real time, conduct direct dialogue, and carry out online consultation and demonstration, etc., to expand the ways and means of digital citizens' participation.

Third, enhance digital democratic oversight. The key to achieving digital democratic supervision is to ensure that data is open, decision-making processes are open and transparent, and automated decision-making is explainable, actionable, and accountable. The Guiding Opinions of the State Council on Strengthening the Construction of Digital Government clearly require that "the operation process of administrative power matters should be solidified by the information platform, and the digital operation, management and supervision of the whole process of administrative examination and approval, administrative law enforcement, and public resource transactions should be promoted, and the standardized and transparent operation of administrative power should be promoted". Article 16 of the Provisions on the Administration of Algorithm Recommendation for Internet Information Services stipulates: "Providers of algorithm recommendation services shall inform users in a conspicuous manner of their provision of algorithm recommendation services, and publicize the basic principles, purposes, intentions, and main operating mechanisms of algorithm recommendation services in an appropriate manner. Therefore, for automated decision-making on major matters, whether it is the public algorithm of the government (including the judicial authority) or the commercial algorithm of the platform's "gatekeeper", its calculation principle, calculation purpose and core operation mechanism should be publicized, and the effect evaluation should be carried out by a third party regularly to ensure the fairness and reasonableness of the algorithm's decision-making. Once these automated decisions are questioned or complained, the relevant entities should provide convenient, clear and credible explanations. Where harmful consequences are caused, actionable channels and accountability mechanisms shall be provided. In addition, online public opinion should be treated tolerantly, and it should be recognized that public opinion is a normal catharsis of social emotions. Actively and effectively responding to public opinion is conducive to discovering problems and resolving contradictions, and better stabilizing social order. In short, only by "establishing a control mechanism before, during and after the event" and dynamically strengthening the control of algorithms through the political path and technical path can we establish a good digital supervision mechanism, offset the institutional free consequences of digital citizens, and better protect the rights of digital citizens.

Finally, explore the path to digital democracy. At the beginning of the rise of digital democracy, people hoped to connect thousands of households through computers, so that all citizens could participate in politics, thus entering the era of "electronic elections". However, subsequent developments have shown that there is a clear imbalance in digital empowerment, from social contract theory to tripartite theory; From democratic voting to automated decision-making, digital citizens are marginalized, absent and objectified; From physical to virtual participation, there is a digital divide, data bias, and algorithmic abuse. As a result, the voice of reflection and criticism gradually rose, and countries also began to actively explore the regulatory path of digital governance, and mainly formed two routes: first, the institutional regulatory route, that is, a large number of regulatory systems for digital platforms, personal information, data transactions, algorithm services, digital markets, etc.; The second is the technical regulatory route, that is, vigorously promoting technological improvement and research and development, and adopting the method of "responding to technology with technology" (such as research and development of privacy computing technology, security supervision technology, etc.) to achieve scientific and technological good. Undoubtedly, technical regulatory strategies are an important supplement or support to institutional regulatory strategies, and the two complement each other and can achieve better results.

（4）Enhance the literacy of digital citizens

The huge transformation from natural survival to digital survival has brought about subversive changes in people's living environment and viability, not only aggravating the original social inequality, but also forming new digital inequality. In particular, the imbalance in digital empowerment and digital development dividends leads to more significant differences in digital viability between individuals. Cultivating and improving the digital literacy and digital capabilities of digital citizens is a major historical task in the process of digital transformation, and it is also a key part of coping with the problem of institutional dissociation of digital citizens.

First, create a digital ecosystem that is inclusive and shared development. The UN Recommendation on the Ethics of AI emphasizes that Member States should ensure that digital technologies do not exacerbate but rather close the large gender gaps that already exist in multiple domains, and that adequate AI literacy education is made available to the public in all countries at all levels "to empower people and reduce the digital divide and inequalities in digital access caused by the widespread adoption of AI systems." China's Action Outline for Improving Digital Literacy and Skills for All calls for enriching the supply of high-quality digital resources, improving high-quality digital living standards, improving high-efficiency digital work capabilities, building a lifelong digital learning system, stimulating the vitality of digital innovation, improving digital security protection capabilities, and strengthening the rule of law ethics in the digital society. The purpose of these policy measures is to create a digital ecosystem that is inclusive and shared development, and to provide the necessary conditions and a good environment for improving the literacy capabilities of digital citizens.

Second, strengthen digital citizenship education and capacity development. From the situation of the European Union, the United States, Canada and other countries or regions, the main contents of digital citizenship education include: digital access, digital commerce, digital communication, digital literacy, digital etiquette, digital law, digital rights and responsibilities, digital health, digital security, etc. The content is designed to encourage and facilitate civic learning to develop their online engagement and creativity. Through the project team on the safe, effective and responsible use of ICTs for digital citizenship education, UNESCO has distilled a simplified interim digital citizenship education framework that includes four basic areas: digital literacy, digital security, digital participation and digital emotional intelligence. This inevitably involves the ability of digital citizens to understand, identify, communicate, operate, participate, protect and supervise.

China's Action Program for Improving Digital Literacy and Skills for All clearly points out that it is necessary to strengthen digital skills education and training for all people, popularize and improve citizens' digital literacy, especially to cultivate digital citizens with digital awareness, computational thinking, lifelong learning ability and social responsibility. In July 2022, the national "National Digital Literacy and Skills Improvement Platform" was officially launched. Subsequently, the Cyberspace Administration of China and other departments selected the first batch of 78 "national digital literacy and skills training bases" across the country. While these initiatives will play an important role in promoting digital citizenship education and capacity development, there is still room for further improvement. First, strategic understanding should be enhanced. Digital citizenship education and capacity development are not only a technical response issue, but also related to the quality ability and digital civilization character of the subject in the global digital competition. Therefore, it is necessary to include "enhancing the 'digital capabilities' of individuals into the framework for infrastructure implementation in the period of digital transformation." Second, the comprehensiveness of education and training should be enhanced. It is very important to advocate "digital skills into the community", cultivate efficient digital work capabilities, digital operation and management capabilities, farmers' digital skills, digital skills of emerging occupational groups, and cadre digital governance capabilities, but it is also necessary to cultivate people's digital operations, digital expressions, and digital participation capabilities in the whole process of people's democracy, and promote digital democracy and digital rule of law. Finally, we should strengthen the coordination of diverse societies, actively mobilize the strength of leading enterprises such as business platforms and technology companies, and provide technical application support, governance participation channels and security protection barriers for digital citizen education and capacity development. Only in this way can we more comprehensively, effectively and substantively shape the literacy and character of digital citizens that meet the needs of the digital age.

Third, shape the digital citizenship of the whole society. Today, the public space and digital life of fiction and reality have provided people with unprecedented free experiences such as identity pluralism, unlimited flow, and anonymous expression, and many people have gradually bred utopian feelings of "network liberalism", and even unfettered release of online violence. It is in this context that shaping digital citizenship has been put on the important agenda of the times, and its core issues include three aspects.

One is the social recognition of digital citizenship. Without universal recognition by society, it is impossible to form a society-wide digital citizenship atmosphere and cultural environment. While UNESCO and some countries have actively developed policy documents on digital citizenship education and capacity development, in many cases, decision-makers and social institutions see digital citizenship as a digital expression or "substitute" for natural citizenship. At the same time, people in digital life do not fully perceive and identify with their digital citizenship, and do not have enough understanding and experience of their digital relationships, digital behaviors, and digital rights and obligations. The interaction of these two factors makes it difficult to form a consensus concept and behavior of digital citizenship in society. Therefore, it is urgent for all social forces, including governments, business platforms, technology companies, and social institutions, to take the identity and value of digital citizens seriously, actively shape the awareness of digital citizenship among members of society, and promote members of society to fulfill the mission and responsibility of digital citizenship.

The second is the digital rule of law concept of digital citizens. The concept of digital rule of law is the cultural foundation of digital citizenship, which specifically includes: (1) the concept of rational freedom. Digital existence has both private and public attributes, and multiple personalities in the digital space (such as the metaverse) allow "the good side of human nature to be stimulated, and the evil side can also be amplified". Therefore, digital citizens should abide by the bottom line of digital civilization, form a rational and self-disciplined digital personality, consciously abide by the law and regulations, and jointly suppress undesirable phenomena such as online violence. (2) Awareness of digital rules. In the process of interacting with digital government, digital justice, commercial platforms, and other digital citizens, digital citizens should not only have positive belief in digital rights and value pursuit, but also have a good sense of obligation and law-abiding spirit, be good at participating in public and social affairs through digital means, legal rules and technical rules, and effectively realize digital supervision, rights protection and rights relief. (3) The concept of digital credit. A major difference between digital life and business social life is that each person leaves a large "digital footprint" every day. These footprints are both an expression of digital personality and the basis of credit in the digital society. Only by maintaining credible digital behavior and digital interaction can each person establish their digital credit as a digital citizen and promote the formation of a shareist digital order.

The third is the ethical spirit of digital citizenship. In the framework of modern rule of law, the basis of the liberal view of citizenship is individualism, the basis of the republican view of citizenship is the public spirit, and the basis of the communitarian view of citizenship is pluralism. However, the ethics of digital citizenship is based on the digital relationships generated by platforms, data, and algorithms, presenting a digital view of citizenship based on balanceism. The ethical spirit of digital citizenship mainly includes: (1) democratic participation, digital supervision and inclusive co-governance in the process of digital administration, digital justice, and business platform governance; (2) the balanced concept of data utilization and information rights protection; (3) Uphold digital equality and promote the concept of digital justice of digital human rights.

concluding remarks

The information revolution has subversively reconstructed the living environment and life paradigm of human beings, and profoundly influenced the framework of rule of law government that has been explored for hundreds of years. At present, it is urgent to redefine the boundaries of the rule of law, reshape the value of justice and reconstruct the rule of law mechanism according to the logic of digital development, which requires attention to three core issues.

First, take digital citizenship seriously. Whether in the public or private sphere, data sharing and automated decision-making have become an inevitable development trend, which may also be the essential feature of the digital society. However, there is a serious imbalance in digital development and technological empowerment in the process of data sharing and automated decision-making, which has created the problem of institutional dissociation of digital citizens, bringing serious digital differentiation and huge social risks. In order to effectively protect digital human rights, the arbitrary misuse of data and algorithms must be controlled, the concept of "taking rights seriously" cannot be relaxed, and the demand to "take digital civil rights seriously" urgently needs to be answered.

Second, explore the control mechanism of digital power. The emergence of digital government, digital platforms and digital citizens has greatly expanded the political space, public participation methods and scope of human beings, improved democratic efficiency and democratic capabilities, and created a high-quality, convenient, rich and comfortable digital life, but also triggered the abuse of technology and the expansion of digital power. Exploring control and constraint mechanisms for digital governments and digital platforms, building digital due process and digital justice mechanisms, resolving the institutional drift of digital citizens and protecting the rights of digital citizens will be the core tasks facing the construction of digital rule of law.

Third, institutional confirmation of digital citizenship and rights. The "governance" of digital governments, digital institutions and digital platforms all have policy and normative foundations, but the identity and rights of digital citizens have not been recognized by the corresponding systems. In order to safeguard human dignity and ensure the all-round development of human beings, it is necessary to accelerate the construction of the digital legal system and the improvement of policies, confirm digital citizenship from the institutional level, ensure the expression of digital interests, digital democratic participation, digital consultation governance, digital justice demands and smooth relief mechanisms for digital citizens, and at the same time improve the quality and morality of digital citizens, and curb the breeding and spread of online violence and illegal crimes.

In short, digital technology should not become a tool for the abuse of power expansion and improper exploitation of capital, but should become a reliable guarantee for sharing the dividends of development and the growth of social rights. Only in this way can the digital civilization order be effectively established, and the digital society will be stable and far-reaching, and can be expected to be good.

The original article was published in the 4th issue of "Legal Research" in 2023, thanks to the WeChat public account "Legal Research" for authorized reprinting!