AI驱动的电商个性化与伦理边界:算法透明度与数据隐私的平衡机制研究
The Balance Mechanism between Algorithmic Transparency and Data Privacy in AI-Driven E-Commerce Personalization: An Ethical Boundary Perspective
DOI: 10.12677/ecl.2026.158863, PDF,    科研立项经费支持
作者: 左晶晶:上海理工大学管理学院,上海;张晨瑜:上海理工大学中英国际学院,上海
关键词: 人工智能个性化推荐算法透明度数据隐私伦理治理Artificial Intelligence Personalized Recommendation Algorithm Transparency Data Privacy Ethical Governance
摘要: 随着人工智能技术在电子商务领域的深度渗透,个性化推荐系统已成为平台提升用户体验与商业转化率的核心工具。然而,算法透明度与数据隐私保护之间的结构性张力构成了当前数字商业生态面临的重大伦理挑战。本文基于隐私计算、可解释人工智能以及数据保护法律框架的理论视角,系统分析了个性化服务中透明度与隐私的博弈关系,探讨了差分隐私、联邦学习等隐私增强技术在推荐系统中的应用机制,并提出了“分层透明”与“动态同意”相结合的技术–制度协同治理框架。研究发现,算法透明度与数据隐私并非零和博弈,通过隐私保护下的可解释推荐设计,可以在保障用户隐私权益的同时实现适度的算法透明,从而构建可持续的人机信任关系。
Abstract: With the deep penetration of artificial intelligence technology into the field of e-commerce, personalized recommendation systems have become a core tool for platforms to improve user experience and business conversion rates. However, the structural tension between algorithm transparency and data privacy protection has become a major ethical challenge facing the current digital business ecosystem. Based on the theoretical perspectives of privacy computing, explainable artificial intelligence, and data protection legal frameworks, this paper systematically analyzes the game relationship between transparency and privacy in personalized services, explores the application mechanisms of privacy-enhancing technologies such as differential privacy and federated learning in recommendation systems, and proposes a coordinated governance framework that combines “layered transparency” with “dynamic consent” in both technology and institutions. The study finds that algorithm transparency and data privacy are not a zero-sum game. Through the design of explainable recommendations under privacy protection, it is possible to achieve a proper level of algorithm transparency while protecting users’ privacy rights, thereby building a sustainable relationship of human-machine trust.
文章引用:左晶晶, 张晨瑜. AI驱动的电商个性化与伦理边界:算法透明度与数据隐私的平衡机制研究[J]. 电子商务评论, 2026, 15(8): 182-189. https://doi.org/10.12677/ecl.2026.158863

参考文献

[1] Awad, N.F. and Krishnan, M.S. (2006) The Personalization Privacy Paradox: An Empirical Evaluation of Information Transparency and the Willingness to Be Profiled Online for Personalization1. MIS Quarterly, 30, 13-28.
https://doi.org/10.2307/25148715 .
[2] 汪庆华. 算法透明的多重维度和算法问责[J]. 比较法研究, 2020(6): 163-173.
[3] 张凌寒. 商业自动化决策的算法解释权研究[J]. 法律科学(西北政法大学学报), 2018, 36(3): 65-74.
[4] Duralia, O., Ogrean, C., Țichindelean, M. and Țichindelean, M. (2025) Decoding the Personalization-Privacy Paradox: From Thematic Scholarly Clusters to Practical Insights. Studies in Business and Economics, 20, 70-97.
https://doi.org/10.2478/sbe-2025-0025
[5] Dwork, C. and Roth, A. (2014) The Algorithmic Foundations of Differential Privacy. Foundations and Trends® in Theoretical Computer Science, 9, 211-487.
https://doi.org/10.1561/0400000042
[6] 张芳, 龙士工, 郭晟南, 刘光源, 张珺铭. 基于差分隐私的自适应个性化联邦学习方法[J]. 计算机工程与设计, 2025, 46(9): 2525-2532.
[7] 冯晗, 伊华伟, 李晓会, 等. 推荐系统的隐私保护研究综述[J]. 计算机科学与探索, 2023, 17(8): 1814-1832.
[8] 张恩典. 算法影响评估制度的反思与建构[J]. 电子政务, 2021(11): 57-68.
[9] 高广尚. 可解释推荐模型中的可解释性方法研究综述[J]. 数据分析与知识发现, 2024, 8(Z1): 6-19.
[10] 陈彩华, 佘程熙, 王庆阳. 可信机器学习综述[J]. 工业工程, 2024, 27(2): 14-26.
[11] Müllner, P., Lex, E., Schedl, M. and Kowald, D. (2024) The Impact Of differential Privacy On recommendation Accuracy And popularity Bias. In: Goharian, N., et al., Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 466-482.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56066-8_33
[12] 卞欣雨, 胡小明, 王安保, 等. 面向异质性的自适应差分隐私联邦学习方法[J]. 计算机系统应用, 2026, 35(5): 74-83.
[13] Gu, X., Zhu, T., Li, J., Zhang, T., Ren, W. and Choo, K.K.R. (2024) Privacy, Accuracy, and Model Fairness Trade-Offs in Federated Learning. Computers & Security, 122, Article 102907.