Redefining Power in the Digital Age: Tong Lihua’s Framework for User Rights and Platform Governance

The traditional legal framework that categorizes online activity primarily as commercial transactions is increasingly failing to address the complexities of the modern digital landscape. As platforms evolve from simple service providers into comprehensive digital environments, the legal community is grappling with the realization that a person losing access to a social media account loses far more than a service; they lose their audience, their archives, their professional livelihood, and their public identity. This shift in the nature of digital interaction forms the core of the argument presented by Tong Lihua in his 2023 book, Social Law in the Digital Age, and his companion research paper, "Ushering in a New Era of User Rights." Tong, a prominent Chinese legal scholar and practitioner, asserts that the current global legal system must transition from a consumer-centric model to a user-rights-based model to account for the "digital power" now wielded by private platforms.

The Emergence of Digital Power and the Social Law Framework

Tong Lihua’s thesis begins with the observation that digital platforms have become the seat of a new form of authority. This "digital power" does not fit neatly into the traditional binary of private and public authority. While platforms are privately owned businesses, they function as the infrastructure for public life. They are the virtual environments where individuals work, speak, trade, organize, and participate in political discourse. Furthermore, these platforms shape the public sphere in which sovereign governments announce policies and conduct diplomacy.

The result of this evolution is a historical redistribution of power. In Tong’s view, platforms are no longer merely vendors; they are governors. They set the rules of engagement, mediate social connections via algorithms, and possess the unilateral authority to exclude individuals from the digital commons. This governance relationship necessitates a new legal categorization—Social Law—which seeks to balance the interests of the individual against the concentrated power of large-scale digital entities.

Chronology of Digital Legal Thought: From the Horse to the Platform

To understand the significance of Tong’s work, it is necessary to look at the evolution of internet law over the last three decades. In the late 1990s, the "Law of the Horse" debate emerged in legal circles, sparked by Judge Frank Easterbrook’s assertion that there was no need for a specialized "law of the internet." Easterbrook argued that just as there is no specific "law of the horse"—since horses are simply subjects of contract, tort, and property law—the internet did not require its own unique legal substance.

However, by the 2010s, the rapid ascent of Big Tech began to challenge this dismissive view. The rise of algorithmic management, data extraction, and the "gig economy" created disputes that traditional contract or labor law struggled to resolve. Tong Lihua’s 2023 publication marks a significant milestone in this chronology, moving beyond the "Law of the Horse" debate to argue that platforms present a distinctive legal condition. Unlike horses, platforms create systemic dependencies and possess the power to unilaterally rewrite the rules of social and economic interaction. Tong’s work arrives at a time when global regulators—from the European Union with its Digital Services Act (DSA) to Chinese authorities implementing algorithm transparency rules—are seeking a more integrated response to platform power.

The Inadequacy of the Consumer Rights Model

A central pillar of Tong’s argument is the distinction between "consumer rights" and "user rights." In most current jurisdictions, online disputes are handled through the lens of consumer protection. This model asks whether a customer was harmed during a transaction or if a product was defective. Tong argues that this is fundamentally insufficient for the digital age for several reasons:

1. Nature of the Relationship: The consumer relationship is transactional and episodic, defined by the exchange of currency for a service. In contrast, the user relationship is continuous and often "free" in monetary terms, but paid for through data, attention, and creative content.
2. Infrastructure vs. Product: A platform is an infrastructure, not just a product. When a creator is removed from a platform, they are not just an "unhappy customer"; they are an individual who has been exiled from their workplace and community.
3. Governance vs. Market: Platforms exercise governance through "digital power." They use algorithmic ranking to determine visibility, set terms of service that function as private legislation, and act as intermediaries between citizens and the state.
4. Exit Costs: In a healthy market, a consumer can switch brands with ease. However, the exit costs for a platform user are often prohibitive. Leaving a dominant platform may mean losing a decade of professional networking, personal archives, or the primary means of reaching an audience.

Supporting Data: The Scale of Platform Dependency

The urgency of Tong’s proposed "user rights" framework is underscored by the sheer scale of global platform dependency. As of 2024, data indicates that the "creator economy" is valued at approximately $250 billion, with millions of individuals relying entirely on third-party platforms for their income. In China alone, the number of "flexible workers" or gig economy participants has surpassed 200 million, many of whom are managed entirely by automated algorithms on delivery and ride-hailing platforms.

Furthermore, studies on digital identity show that over 70% of internet users use "Social Login" (signing in via a major platform account) for other services, creating a single point of failure. If a platform arbitrarily bans a user, the "cascading effect" can lock them out of hundreds of unrelated services, from banking to healthcare portals. This data supports Tong’s claim that platforms have become an unavoidable piece of the architecture of public life, making the arbitrary exercise of their power a matter of fundamental rights rather than simple commerce.

Proposed Pillars of User Rights

Tong Lihua does not merely critique the status quo; he proposes a substantive set of rights that should be afforded to users to check digital power. These include:

• The Right to Transparency: Users should have the right to understand the logic behind algorithmic decisions that affect their livelihood or visibility.
• The Right to Due Process: Platforms should be required to provide intelligible reasons for account suspensions and a meaningful, non-arbitrary process for appeals.
• The Right to Non-Discrimination: Ensuring that platform rules and algorithmic rankings do not unfairly disadvantage specific groups or individuals.
• The Right to Participation: Allowing users—particularly those whose businesses are hosted on the platform—to have a voice in the rulemaking processes that affect their interests.
• The Right to Substantive Remedies: Moving beyond mere refunds to ensure that users are compensated for the loss of digital assets, reputation, or access to work.

Reactions and Global Context

Tong’s framework has sparked significant discussion among legal scholars and policymakers. In China, his work aligns with recent regulatory shifts toward "Common Prosperity" and the tightening of oversight on Big Tech firms like Alibaba and Tencent. However, his focus on "rights" rather than just "regulation" provides a more human-centric approach that resonates with international human rights standards.

Global legal analysts have noted that Tong’s concept of "digital power" mirrors the "gatekeeper" terminology used in the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). While Western discourse often focuses on antitrust and competition, Tong’s contribution is unique in its integration of "Social Law," suggesting that the protection of users is a social necessity akin to labor protections established during the Industrial Revolution.

Critics, however, raise concerns about the implementation of such a framework. Some industry representatives argue that overly stringent "user rights" could stifle innovation or make it impossible for platforms to moderate harmful content effectively. They suggest that the "governance" role of platforms is a burden they are forced to carry, and that imposing state-like due process requirements could lead to legal gridlock.

Analysis of Implications: A New Social Contract

The transition to a user-rights-based approach implies a fundamental shift in the digital social contract. If platforms are recognized as having public functions, the law must treat them as more than ordinary shopkeepers. This has profound implications for the future of governance.

First, it suggests a move toward "co-governance," where users, platforms, and the state share the responsibility for maintaining a fair digital environment. Second, it challenges the absolute nature of "Terms of Service" agreements, which are currently treated as unassailable private contracts but may soon be viewed as subjects of public interest scrutiny. Finally, Tong’s work highlights that in the digital age, the protection of human rights—such as the right to work and the right to free expression—cannot be achieved by looking at the state alone. It requires a legal framework that can reach into the private code and algorithmic structures of the platforms that now mediate our existence.

The central question for the coming decade is how rights should be protected in a world where citizens, governments, and platforms all share the terrain of power. Tong Lihua’s Social Law in the Digital Age provides a provocative and integrated roadmap for this transition, arguing that until we see life online as "living" rather than "shopping," our legal systems will remain obsolete. As platforms continue to integrate deeper into the fabric of society, the shift from consumer to user may be the most critical legal evolution of the 21st century.