|
|
|
| Algorithm Embedded in Political Security Governance: Risk Patterns and Regulatory Paths |
| CHEN Dong-dong |
| Institute of Philosophy, Liaoning Academy of Social Sciences, Shenyang, Liaoning, 110031 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract With the in-depth advancement of the “Digital China” strategy, big data algorithms, as a new type of power carrier, have been deeply embedded in the entire process of political security governance. Algorithms reshape the connotation and form of political security: the territory of political security expands from physical space to digital sovereignty space, the content of security deepens from regime security to cognitive security, the main participants in security expand from state-led to multi-stakeholder collaboration, and the form of security transforms from static defense to dynamic governance. Through operational mechanisms such as data-driven approaches, intelligent decision-making, and collaborative governance, algorithms empower political security governance with precise perception, scientific policy formulation, and multi-stakeholder co-governance, driving its transformation from traditional experience-driven to modern technology-enabled. However, algorithms also induce multiple political security risks: at the digital sovereignty level, algorithm hegemony erodes national digital sovereignty through technological monopoly and rule suppression; at the ideological level, algorithm manipulation triggers cognitive alienation and undermines the foundation of social consensus; at the level of social and political stability, issues such as algorithmic discrimination and abuse of rights intensify social contradictions; at the level of technological autonomy, algorithm black boxes and ethical disorder lead to governance failure and even technological backlash. To this end, it is imperative to construct a comprehensive governance system integrating institutional regulation, technological breakthroughs, ethical embedding, and multi-stakeholder collaboration, so as to accurately prevent and resolve political security risks in the algorithm era and build a solid barrier for national security in the digital age.
|
|
Received: 10 September 2025
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 中共中央宣传部,中央国家安全委员会办公室编.总体国家安全观学习纲要[M].北京:学习出版社,人民出版社,2022.58-59.
[2] 张爱军,曲家谊.国家治理现代化风险规制:算法中立原则的祛魅与调适[J].理论与改革,2024,(4):53-66.
[3] 孟天广,李珍珍.治理算法:算法风险的伦理原则及其治理逻辑[J].学术论坛2022,45(1):9-20.
[4] 谢波,李晨炜.人工智能对国家政治安全的影响机理与应对思考[J].国家安全研究2023,(1):99-122.
[5] 王玉龙,曾润喜.算法偏见的生成逻辑与治理[J].电子政务,2025,(10):100-107.
[6] 洪涛,王瀛,白锐.深度伪造引发安全风险的逻辑理路与共治方案[J].中国行政管理,2025,41(3):114-126.
[7] 刘玲霞. 数字主权安全的理论内涵、现实挑战与应对路径[J].陕西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2024,53(1):122-133.
[8] 倪春乐,钟瑜.国家安全视阈下算法推荐的认知安全风险及应对[J].情报杂志,2025,44(8):78-84.
[9] 张广胜. 生成式人工智能的国家安全风险及其对策[J].人民论坛·学术前沿,2023,(14):76-85.
[10] 张彦华,胡正荣.资本、技术与权力的互构——人工智能嵌入政治安全的三维路径与我国政治安全水平提升策略[J].政治学研究,2024,(4):58-70.
[11] 刘超. 数字帝国主义引发的政治安全风险及其防范[J].宁夏党校学报,2024,26(5):92-101.
[12] 徐玉梅. 身份意义与权能意义:国家数据主权治理法治化[J].行政论坛,2021,28(6):35-42.
[13] 王天民,郑丽丽.算法技术意识形态属性的生成逻辑及风险应对[J].河南社会科学,2023,31(10):1-9.
[14] 张林. 智能算法推荐的意识形态风险及其治理[J].探索,2021,(1):176-188.
[15] 张彦华,徐帆.人工智能影响政治安全的逻辑及其风险治理——基于传播政治经济学的分析[J].社会科学战线,2022,(12):196-205.
[16] 习近平. 努力成为世界主要科学中心和创新高地[J].求是,2021,(6):4-11.
[17] 李嘉莉. 智能算法技术的意识形态风险:生成逻辑、主要表征与治理路径[J].马克思主义与现实,2025,(4):163-168.
[18] 李瑞奇,李高磊.生成式人工智能的意识形态风险:出场、样态与治理[J].当代世界与社会主义,2025,(2):149-156.
[19] 马方,张艺立.新时代防范化解政治安全风险的逻辑演变与实践进路——基于总体国家安全观视角的审视[J].思想理论战线,2024,(6):8-19. |
|
|
|
2026, Vol. 43 
