The global digital transformation, while reshaping the social power structure and resource distribution pattern, has also given rise to the practical paradox of technological equity. This paradox of technological equity reveals the complex mechanism where technological empowerment and technological alienation coexist, and equal opportunities and structural imbalance are intertwined. It is a significant obstacle to achieving the goal of technology for good. Resolving this paradox not only helps to clarify the value tensions in the application of digital technology but also provides possible pathways for transforming the value demands of technology for good into operational institutional arrangements. In light of this, this study focuses on the core issue of the paradox of technological equity. Based on a systematic review of the evolution of the concept of technological equity, the theoretical framework, and the inherent contradictions, an integrated analytical framework of “paradox manifestations→underlying causes→governance pathways” was constructed. The study deeply analyzed the fourfold structural tensions that led to the paradox of technological equity, and accordingly proposed a resilient governance approach centered on the three-dimensional synergy of “institution—technology—society”, aiming to provide systematic theoretical support and governance solutions to address the structural dilemmas in the practice of technological equity.

The research findings are as follows: (1) Technological equity is not a simple issue of technological diffusion; rather, it is a progressive composite proposition encompassing accessibility of access, empowerment of capabilities, and justice of outcomes. Its ideal goal is to achieve equal access to resources, fair distribution of benefits, and reasonable sharing of risks through institutional arrangements and technological design. However, in practice, due to the interweaving of multiple tensions, paradoxical characteristic that the coexistence of empowerment effects and alienation risks is presented. (2) The root cause of the paradox of technological equity lies in the interweaving and superposition of four tensions: the intersection of equity ideal and technological practice, market logic and social goal, social structure and technological system, and governance system and technological evolution. (3) The governance approach needs to complete the paradigm shift from fragmented regulation to systematic resilience-based collaborative governance. Through multiple dimensions such as institutional reconfiguration, technology domestication, entity collaboration, and global cooperation, a dynamic coupling effect can be formed between institutional adaptability supply, technology manageable design, and social initiative activation. This will provide a resilient governance practical approach for systematically resolving the paradox of technological equity.

This study reveals the deep generative mechanism of the technology equity paradox, providing theoretical support and practical approaches for its systematic governance. However, this study also has some limitation. Methodologically, it mainly relies on normative analysis and case induction, and lacks empirical verification using large sample data to test the effectiveness of the governance approach for the technology equity paradox. Future research can deepen in two aspects: Firstly, at the methodological level, cross-national panel data can be adopted to empirically test the synergy effect of the three?dimensional governance elements of institutions, technology and society; Secondly, at the contextual level, attention should be focused on emerging technology iteration scenarios to explore the dynamic adaptability of governance tools.