Social Media, Minors, and Public Health: An Ethical Analysis of Australia’s Age-Based Restrictions on Social Media

What if the platforms that minors use every day to communicate, learn, and form their identities were suddenly taken away in the name of public health? Australia’s decision to restrict social media access for those under sixteen raises questions about whether government intervention is necessary to protect minors from neurological, mental, and behavioral harms. However, in a world where social media is deeply connected to friendship, self-expression, and community, it becomes difficult to determine whether a blanket ban protects minors or limits their developing autonomy. This paper will analyze the ethical balance between protecting children from harm and respecting parental authority, individual differences, and the benefits of digital connection.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Background Information

3. Young Children and Social Media

4. Public Health Issue: Risks of Social Media Usage

   1. Neurological Health

   2. Mental Health

   3. Behavioral Health

5. Impacts of Australia’s Social Media Ban For Minors

6. Ethical Analysis: Deontology and Consequentialism (Utilitarianism)

   1. Age Verification, Privacy, and Enforcement Responsibility

   2. Platform Design and The Platforms’ Responsibility

   3. Blanket Ban and Individual Differences

   4. Harm Reduction and Loss of Benefits

7. Conclusion

Featured Image by freepik from Magnific

Introduction

This paper examines the ethical justification for the Australian government’s decision to impose age restrictions on social media use for those under sixteen. It focuses on the ethical value of safety and the bioethical principles of autonomy, justice, and beneficence, while evaluating the broader responsibilities of parents, the government, minors, and social media platforms through the ethical frameworks of utilitarianism and deontology. This analysis considers the mental, neurological, physical, and social harms associated with adolescent social media use, and whether these harms constitute a public health concern significant enough to warrant government intervention. One of the viewpoints I will be looking at argues that limiting access may help preserve minors’ future autonomy by protecting their development during critical stages (Engels et al.). In this context, protecting future autonomy means limiting early exposure to potentially harmful digital environments in order to ensure that minors can develop the cognitive and emotional capacity to make independent decisions as adults. Another view suggests that restrictions may overstep and infringe on parental autonomy and limit family decision-making (Inserra).

Another piece of this dilemma is the role that national values play in shaping regulatory decisions. Government policies are determined by both empirical evidence and cultural beliefs about freedom, autonomy, and the perceived duty of the government. In some societies, individual liberty is prioritized, leading to resistance against government intervention in personal and family decisions. In others, collective safety and public welfare are emphasized, making regulatory action more acceptable when it is intended to prevent harm. As a result, countries often adopt different approaches to similar issues, including social media regulation. Understanding these underlying values is important when evaluating the ethicality of Australia’s regulations. While cultural context can help explain why different countries may adopt different approaches to public health issues, this does not necessarily determine what is ethically justified. Instead, it raises a broader question about how cultural values shape ethical opinions, even though this paper focuses on evaluating the ethicality of Australia’s policy through the principles of autonomy, justice, and beneficence, and the value of safety (1).

(1)  The purpose of this paper is not to answer the debate about whether ethics depend on culture or are universal. However, it is important to recognize that countries like the United States or Australia may prioritize different values, such as individual freedom or collective safety. This can ultimately influence how they create and justify regulations.

By examining both the risks and benefits of social media use among minors, this paper evaluates whether age-based restrictions are a justified means of promoting well-being or an intrusion on individual and familial freedoms. The core ethical question of this paper is, under what conditions is it ethically justifiable for a government to restrict minors’ access to social media in order to protect public health and preserve future autonomy, while also respecting parental authority and family decision-making? This includes considering how responsibility for protecting minors from harm should be shared, if it should be shared at all, between the parents and the government.

Background Information

For the purpose of this paper, I will be using an Australian definition of the term “social media”. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner defines social media as “any online social network. An online social network is a website or app that allows a user to create and share content online, for example, Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn. This often involves sharing personal information in comments and messages, and photos and videos.” (Office of the Australian Information Commissioner). From this definition, common examples of platforms that fit the criteria today are: Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, X (Twitter), Pinterest, LinkedIn, Threads, and Reddit. Additionally, for the purpose of this paper, I will be defining the term “minors” as those under sixteen years of age, which is in line with Australia’s policy. However, in many other contexts, minors are typically defined as individuals under eighteen.

The Australian ban on social media is the world’s first comprehensive age-based ban on social media use by people under sixteen years of age. The blanket ban came into effect on December 10, 2025, and enforcement began immediately, with platforms removing existing social media accounts for those under sixteen years old and restricting the creation of new accounts. The platforms affected by the ban are: TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, Reddit, Instagram, Facebook, Kick, Twitch, Threads, and X. These are mostly high-scale, feed-based or community-based platforms, where algorithmic amplification is central, and content moderation and exposure risks are persistent concerns. If these platforms fail to implement measures to protect children under sixteen, they potentially face fines of up to 49.5 million Australian dollars.

There are additional platforms under review that may be added to the ban in the future, such as Discord, GitHub, Google Classroom, LEGO Play, Messenger, Pinterest, Roblox, Steam and Steam Chat, WhatsApp, and YouTube Kids. These platforms are difficult to classify because many of them include social features such as messaging, content sharing, or online communities, even if their main use is education, gaming, or communication. The ethical issue arises as these platforms are not entirely risk-free. Many include chat communities, potential exposure to inappropriate content, and other potential harms. This creates a challenge in determining how they should be categorized, especially since the policy is still new and being further developed. As a result, there is uncertainty as some platforms are difficult to classify, raising questions about whether the criteria for inclusion are being applied fairly and consistently.

Trademarks are the property of their respective owners

It is also important to note that AI chatbots are not included in the social media ban, but they are being addressed through Australia’s broader Online Safety Codes, which went into effect on March 9, 2026. These Codes require AI chatbot providers such as ChatGPT to implement safeguards that prevent sexually ethxplicit conversations, self-harm encouragement, and other harmful interactions with minors. Additionally, they may require age verification before allowing access to high-risk content (Civil Society Alliances for Digital Empowerment). In addition to these safeguards, the Codes expand age verification requirements to a wider range of platforms, including AI chatbots, app stores, and other online platforms. This suggests that while AI chatbots are not classified as social media platforms, they are still being considered in discussions about online safety concerning minors. The inclusion of AI chatbots in separate regulations from the original Australian social media ban also highlights how policymakers are beginning to address different types of technologies, as distinctions between different types of platforms are still developing (Borak).

Australia’s social media restriction framework relies in part on a self-assessment and notification system, overseen by the eSafety Commissioner, the Australian agency responsible for online safety regulation. In this system, digital platforms are expected to assess whether they meet the definition of an age-restricted social media platform (eSafety Commissioner), using guidance and criteria developed by the eSafety Commissioner. These assessments consider whether a service’s primary or significant purpose is to enable online social interaction. Additionally, they evaluate a platform’s features, functions, and patterns of usage. Platforms may voluntarily submit self-assessment notifications indicating that they believe that they fall within the scope of the law, and this information may be published to promote transparency. However, such notifications are not a formal classification and do not necessarily result in enforcement action (eSafety Commissioner).

In the absence of a formal designation by the Minister for Communications, classification is ultimately determined by the courts. A formal designation would occur if the Minister for Communications officially classifies a service as an age-restricted social media platform or a non-age-restricted social media platform. Within this framework, the eSafety Commissioner does not attempt to assess every platform, but instead adopts a selective, risk-based enforcement approach, prioritizing services with significant numbers of Australian users under the age of sixteen and features associated with potential harm. The Commissioner may only exercise statutory powers when there are “reasonable grounds” to believe a service meets the relevant criteria, drawing on a wide range of evidence, including platform policies, public communications, third-party research, and independent evaluation. (eSafety Commissioner). In this system, responsibility is distributed to the platforms, regulatory bodies, and the judicial system. While self-assessment allows for flexibility in an evolving digital environment, it introduces ambiguity regarding responsibility and enforcement. The reliance on voluntary disclosure and selective oversight creates potential gaps in the protection of minors.

Under the ban, social media companies hold responsibility for the enforcement of the ban, not government systems, parents, or teens. These companies are employing a variety of tools to verify the ages of users, including AI tools, facial analysis, and voluntary ID checks. These methods are raising concerns about accuracy, privacy, fairness, and potential bias. This approach to enforcement reflects the government’s broader concern about the impact of social media on minors and its role in creating online risks.

The Australian government justifies the ban of social media, citing concerns over the mental health and well-being of Australian children and teens, believing the risks of social media, such as cyberbullying, harmful content, and online predators, outweigh the benefits. The Australian government intends to protect children from the psychological and social pressures of online platforms while reducing their exposure to potentially harmful interactions (Livingstone).

To better understand why Australia was willing to implement such a strong restriction, it is important to consider the country’s political culture and history. Australia has historically taken a more precautionary and public-health-oriented approach to regulation than countries like the United States. One major example is Australia’s response to the 1996 Port Arthur mass shooting, in which 35 people were murdered. After this, the government rapidly implemented strict national gun control laws with broad public support (Wahlquist). This demonstrated a national willingness to accept certain restrictions if they were believed to significantly improve public safety.

Australia prioritizes the protection of vulnerable populations and harm prevention as core national values, even when this requires restricting certain freedoms. These cultural priorities can help explain why social media regulation may be understood in Australia as a part of a broader public health approach rather than solely as a restriction on individual freedom. Other countries may view similar restrictions as government overreach. This suggests that Australia’s policy is about social media and how national values shape what societies believe governments should be responsible for protecting.

Overall, this background highlights that Australia’s policy is a reflection of how its society understands risk, responsibility, and the role of government in protecting vulnerable populations. The structure of the policy, including its reliance on platform enforcement, evolving classifications, and broader safety codes, demonstrates that the process of regulating social media platforms is complex and still developing. Additionally, the influence of national values suggests that ethical judgments about government intervention are shaped by evidence about harm and underlying beliefs concerning autonomy and collective responsibility. This is significant because it shows that the justification for restricting minors’ access to social media should be considered within a broader framework that evaluates when the government’s duty to protect minors outweighs its obligations to respect familial autonomy.

Young Children and Social Media

During the COVID-19 pandemic, people were cut off from society, leading to an increase in social isolation (Delogu et al.). Overall, during the pandemic, the number of hours social media was used increased. This increase in usage has been negatively correlated with emotional stability. Although this study focused on students rather than minors specifically, it is still relevant because it shows how younger populations relied more heavily on social media during periods of isolation. When the lockdown occurred, there was no more active usage of social media; rather, there was an increase in passive usage by users, which is linked to depression (Delogu et al.).

Family YouTube channels have become popular in recent years and are typically geared toward younger audiences. The channels show families participating in challenges or documenting their daily lives through vlogs. While some viewers see these channels as harmless entertainment, others argue that they raise ethical concerns about the exploitation of minors, especially because many of the channels generate a significant income. In these cases, parents may have financial incentives to continue producing content that features their children, raising questions about conflicts of interest in decisions that affect a child’s well-being and privacy. There have also been concerns about the number of hours spent on filming content, as children feel like recording is their job and feel pressure from parents to participate (Timmer). Some channels create negative long-term outcomes for children, with humiliating and embarrassing moments of their lives being broadcast to the public, potentially violating their privacy.

These concerns connect to the dilemma presented by the social media ban, as the ban aims to reduce potential harms associated with minors’ online presence, and these harms can be seen in the case of family channels. Additionally, the rise of family YouTube channels demonstrates how social media is everywhere, even reaching into and having a major influence on personal spaces like familial relationships. With the potential of exploitation growing with social media usage by minors, the question is raised: Who holds the primary responsibility for protecting minors? Or is it a shared responsibility between stakeholders?

There have been similar concerns with TikTok accounts that feature minors frequently in videos. Although this example is from the United States, it is relevant because it shows another way governments can respond to the risks minors face on social media. A recent law in Illinois gives minors more control over the content that is shared on the internet. The law requires that children must be paid to be featured in their parents’ or guardians’ social media content. It specifies that children under sixteen must be paid 15% of the income generated if they appear in at least 30% of the monetized online content, and this goes into a trust (Kato). The law also states that if a child wishes for a video of them to be taken down, they are allowed to make that request, and if a parent or guardian does not comply, they may sue for damages. There were many concerns of possible exploitation, because children may not understand the consequences of having their image shared online, and that their parents are making a monetary gain from it. Some parents love the opportunity to share their lives with their children and make a monetary gain from it, enjoying the time they can be together as a family and regularly checking to make sure their children are comfortable with creating content (Kato). This example is relevant to the broader ethical question because it shows that governments can place limits on how content is created and shared without fully restricting access to platforms. This highlights the tension between protecting minors from harm and respecting parental authority because it suggests that government intervention may be justified in cases where parents may not fully safeguard a child’s long-term autonomy or well-being.

Additionally, the algorithms that platforms like TikTok use are specifically designed to hold users’ attention and ensure they spend a significant amount of time scrolling and engaging with content. The algorithm mirrors a slot machine, with the action of pulling down equating

Image by pikisuperstar from Magnific

to reloading content, resulting in a win or a loss, or getting an entertaining video (Petrillo). From this comparison, a conclusion can be drawn that social media apps are just as addictive as slot machines (Amirthalingam et al.). Due to the addictive capabilities of social media platforms and the fact that children typically do not have as much impulse control (American Psychological Association) as those whose brains are more developed, minors may have trouble navigating and regulating the amount of time they spend on platforms and the content they engage with. Because these algorithms continuously learn user preferences and deliver increasingly tailored content, minors may be drawn toward more potentially harmful material, making it harder for them to regulate how long they engage with platforms and what they choose to consume.

This rise in usage among younger populations underscores why social media has become a growing concern, providing the foundation for understanding its potential classification as a public health issue. This increasing prevalence of social media in daily life and its integration into family dynamics suggest that its influence extends beyond individual choice and into broader social structures. At the same time, examples such as family content creation and algorithm-driven engagement highlight how minors may be exposed to environments they are not able to regulate independently. This raises important ethical questions about whether responsibility for managing these risks can remain at the familial level or whether the nature of the influences creates conditions that justify external intervention. The rise of social media usage among minors helps establish a basis for analyzing when, if at all, government action becomes necessary, and if it can be ethically justified.

Public Health Issue: Risks of Social Media Usage

Neurological Health

Social media use has also been associated with a significant decrease in attention span, particularly in adolescents and young adults, which may interfere with learning. This is worsened by users’ ability to scroll endlessly through apps like TikTok. Research has also shown an association between social media use and lower academic performance, especially in college students, including lower GPAs (Junco). Social media has also been linked to neurological and cognitive effects, especially from frequently checking social media. These effects include changes to impulse control, sensitivity to social feedback, and reward processing. This has been linked to less restraint in social interactions (American Psychological Association). This occurs because children's cortical systems, which “play[] a key role in memory, thinking, learning, reasoning, problem-solving, emotions, consciousness and functions related to [the] senses” (Cleveland Clinic), are still developing. As a result of this, minors may have more difficulty resisting impulses and may be more likely to prioritize short-term rewards over long-term consequences. Additionally, there is an increase in hypersensitivity to social feedback and criticism as younger people wish to obtain praise or attention from peers, but are sensitive to positive social feedback and rejection. Social media platforms are designed to give immediate social rewards in the form of dopamine and serotonin, and are stimulated by likes or comments. When these social rewards are taken away, there is an increase in anxiety and depression (Laxton). The usage of social media is also linked with an increase in multitasking, resulting in a weaker ability to focus on only one task at a time (Sana et al.). Additionally, as previously noted, social media usage also leads to an overstimulation of the brain’s reward center, which can trigger similar pathways to addiction (Katella).

Mental Health

Image by rawpixel.com from Magnific

One of the main reasons social media use is a public health concern is its association with reported mental health challenges among youth populations. Usage of social media has been associated with negative effects on overall mental health, especially concerning self-esteem and self-image among children and teens (Zubair et al.). Research suggests that these effects are largely driven by social comparison, as users are frequently exposed to idealized and curated representations of others’ lives and appearances, which can lead to unrealistic standards and increased dissatisfaction with one’s own image (Hawes et al.).

Additionally, increased social media use has been linked to greater levels of appearance-related dissatisfaction, especially among adolescents, with evidence indicating that more frequent engagement is associated with more negative self-perceptions (Hawes et al.). Similarly, studies show that higher levels of use are correlated with lower subjective well-being and reduced life satisfaction, particularly among young adults (Kross et al.). In this context, subjective well-being refers to an individual’s self-reported sense of happiness, life satisfaction, and overall emotional state, rather than objective clinical measures such as diagnosed mental illness. These findings suggest that even in the absence of a formal diagnosis, individuals may experience diminished quality of life and emotional fulfillment associated with increased social media engagement. Among children and adolescents, frequent use has been linked to increased stress levels and social anxiety, and a lack of emotional regulation, as constant connectivity and social evaluation can heighten psychological pressure (Zubair et al.).

Furthermore, depression in children and teens has also been positively correlated with usage of social media, demonstrating the widespread negative impact of social media on mental health, especially for children and teens (Zubair et al.). This is worsened when users passively engage with platforms, meaning they do not post or comment; they merely scroll through other users’ photos or videos. According to the literature, there is a correlation between passively engaging with social media and depression and mood disorders,  inciting emotions such as loss of interest or “personal ill-being” (Zubair et al.). Finally, excessive use of social media may also contribute to social media “burnout”, which is characterized by emotional exhaustion and disengagement. It is important to note that the literature characterizes “excessive” (Zubair et al.) social media use as patterns of frequent or problematic engagement that are associated with negative psychological outcomes.

Behavioral Health

Social media has been linked to many negative physical and behavioral effects and risks, especially for minors. Many of these harms have broader implications for public health and bioethical considerations regarding the well-being of younger populations. These effects are relevant to public health because they reflect patterns that may impact population-level physical well-being. There is easy access to inappropriate, harmful, and extreme content, and the effects on viewers include self-harm (sometimes fatal) and disordered eating behaviors. Many are encouraged to engage in risk-taking “challenges”, “cutting”, and partial asphyxiation by content they view on social media (American Psychological Association). 

Research suggests that higher levels of social media use are associated with increased reports of somatic symptoms, including fatigue, dizziness, and gastrointestinal issues, as well as greater healthcare utilization among young adults (Beutel et al.). While these findings are correlational, they indicate that social media use may be linked to the physical manifestation of psychological distress. From a public health perspective, an increase in such symptoms across a population may have broader implications for overall health trends, and from a bioethical perspective, it raises questions about how well digital platforms protect vulnerable users from potential harm.

Additionally, higher levels of C-reactive protein have been observed in young adults, which is worrying as the protein is a marker of chronic inflammation. High levels of this protein have been linked with an increased risk for chronic illnesses, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, and depression (Lee et al.). Along with the previously-listed impacts, visual health is a concern, particularly among children and adolescents. Some of the potential harms are myopia, which is a common vision condition in which close objects appear clear, but distant objects are blurry (Ha et al.). Sleep is also a concern, as many people are experiencing a lack of sleep with social media usage, which is a proven contributor to depression. This is mostly due to the blue light from electronic devices, which interferes with sleep patterns (American Psychological Association).

These mental, physiological, neurological, and behavioral effects demonstrate that social media use among minors extends beyond individual behavior and into the realm of population-level public health concerns. There is consistent evidence across multiple areas of research that strengthens the argument that social media may pose a predictable risk to developing individuals, even though many of these findings are correlational. This is important because the classification of an issue as a public health concern changes how responsibility in the situation is understood. When harms are widespread, difficult to avoid, and shaped by factors such as platform design, it becomes less reasonable to expect families and individuals to be able to manage risks alone. As a result, these findings support the idea that government intervention may be justified under certain conditions, especially when it aims to prevent harm that is predictable and difficult to navigate at the individual level. However, these findings also raise the question of how strong and invasive that intervention should be, and whether less restrictive alternatives could achieve similar protective outcomes.

Impacts of Australia’s Social Media Ban For Minors

Reactions to Australia’s social media ban varied among stakeholders, with some viewing it as a necessary protective measure and others seeing it as overly restrictive (Blackwood). How minors respond to Australia’s social media ban shows the intended benefits and unintended consequences of the policy. Many teens in Australia who were under the age of sixteen were frustrated and upset when the ban went into effect, feeling excluded from the decision-making process by the adults responsible for creating the policy. Many emphasized the importance of social media in a world where it is necessary for daily communication, connection, and social interaction. There was a sense of loss of community, as social media platforms were places where many teens stayed in touch and found friends.

Many worry the ban will isolate younger people or push them toward the use of less safe, unregulated platforms. Some teens, however, see some potential benefits that the ban could provide. They think the ban could allow younger kids to grow up without pressures that arise from social media, though enforcement may be challenging (Livingstone).

Image by macrovector from Magnific

Some parents feel a sense of relief and support and view the ban as a useful tool to help them enforce limits they previously struggled with. They believe that social media consumes too much of their children’s time and affects their family life (Blackwood). However, other parents feel as though the ban is a source of conflict and tension in their households, with teens resisting the changes. One parent reported that his son was “so despondent and so angry and sad. He wasn't really telling me what he was feeling or what the issue was” (Blackwood). While this reaction may suggest that the ban is causing initial distress, it does not necessarily mean that the policy is harmful overall. This response may reflect the deep integration of social media use and how difficult it is to reduce or limit it. Mirroring other forms of dependency, short-term emotional resistance does not outweigh the potential long-term benefits the ban may provide for overall well-being.

A survey from FOSI, the Family Online Safety Institute, shows that 65% of Australian parents support the under-sixteen ban, but only about 38% of Australian children support it, highlighting a clear generational divide. The law does not include a parental consent exception for minors to create their own social media accounts, limiting parents’ ability to formally authorize independent use. As a result, some parents argue that the ban is overly broad and limits their ability to make individualized decisions for their children, believing they are best placed to judge what is safe for their individual kids (Family Online Safety Institute). However, parents can, as a practical matter, allow their children access to social media through the use of a parent’s account, even if this is not the intended outcome of the law. These varied reactions highlight the complexity of the policy’s impact, illustrating how the same regulation can be experienced as appropriately protective or excessively restrictive.

The Australian government hopes that the social media ban will have a positive impact on the mental health of children and teens. However, some worry that the ban may unintentionally harm certain groups, such as the LGBTQ+ youth community, since the ban restricts access to online communities that support mental health and identity development (Sy). There are also hopes that the ban will help reduce the amount of time minors spend online and aid parents in enforcing boundaries, as the ban is an external rule they can use to limit usage. Additionally, the ban serves as a global policy model and is acting as a test case for how governments regulate social media access for their youth (Candelier).

In summary, unintended effects of the ban include a loss of communication, friendships, and online communities for minors, making them feel isolated or alone. Additionally, there are worries that minors will shift to less safe or unregulated platforms that are harder to monitor(Sy), resulting in more potential harm for them. There are also concerns about minors’ privacy, as the enforcement methods used by platforms may require facial recognition or ID checks(Candelier). There may also be a rise in familial tensions as a result of the ban if teens are resistant to complying, creating conflict in households. Finally, though the usage of VPNs to bypass restrictions is a concern, the government is aware of it, and platforms can look at IP addresses, device settings, or phone numbers to see if someone is masking their real location(eSafety Commissioner). Altogether, these outcomes demonstrate that the ban produces a range of effects that must be carefully considered when determining its ethicality.

The goal of the social media ban is to protect the mental health of children and teens in Australia, and to allow children to learn about potential risks and how to stay safe online. There are concerns, though, that even if those under sixteen years of age lose formal accounts, they may still have access to content without logging in, meaning they lose built-in safety features such as content filters or reporting features (eSafety Commissioner). While this is a problem with enforcement, it is a potential adverse effect of the ban. Overall, the varied responses to Australia’s social media ban highlight the complexity of evaluating its ethical implications. While the policy aims to reduce harm and support the well-being of minors (Sy), its real-world effects reveal both intended benefits and unintended consequences that complicate the justification of the ban. The experiences of teens, parents, and marginalized communities demonstrate that the regulation can be received in different ways, as some believe that the ban is protective and others believe it is restrictive (Blackwood). This reinforces the idea that the ethical analysis has to consider how the effects of the ban are experienced across different populations and whether it produces outcomes that align with the intended purpose. Ultimately, these mixed effects emphasize the importance of identifying the conditions under which this policy can be justified, including whether it effectively reduces harm, respects autonomy, and avoids creating new risks that outweigh the benefits.

Ethical Analysis: Deontology and Consequentialism (Utilitarianism)

The frameworks I will be using to analyze the ethicality of Australia’s social media ban are deontology and utilitarianism. Deontology evaluates whether actions are morally right based on duties and obligations rather than their outcomes. It focuses on whether decisions respect moral rules and responsibilities, regardless of whether they produce the best consequences for all stakeholders. It asks what obligations governments, parents, and individuals have toward one another. The second framework is utilitarianism, which evaluates actions based on their consequences, specifically whether they maximize overall well-being and minimize suffering. In other words, utilitarianism looks at the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In this ethical analysis, I will first identify specific ethical problems created by the ban and analyze each one through relevant values and bioethical principles. Then, within each issue, I will apply deontology and utilitarianism to evaluate whether the policy is ethically justified. I will look at the issues of privacy, platform responsibility, individual differences, and harm reduction.

Age Verification, Privacy, and Enforcement Responsibility

The first ethical problem concerns privacy and protection within age verification systems. When looking at this situation through the principle of non-maleficence, the focus is on the obligation to avoid causing harm. Age verification systems are meant to reduce harm by

Image by Kampus from Magnific

preventing minors from accessing platforms that may expose them to the harms stated previously. From this perspective, the ban for minors promotes non-maleficence because it attempts to prevent younger users from engaging with platforms that could have negative effects on their mental, physical, emotional, or social well-being. However, non-maleficence also requires consideration of the harms introduced by the policy itself. Age verification systems may create new risks, including data breaches, misuse of personal information, inaccurate age assessment, and long-term privacy concerns. In other words, the policy may prevent one kind of harm while creating a different kind of vulnerability for users. This means the principle of non-maleficence does not automatically support this aspect of the ban, but instead, it requires asking whether the harms prevented with the use of age-verification systems are greater than the harms that these systems introduce.

When analyzing the situation through the principle of justice, the focus is on fairness, equality, and how benefits and burdens are distributed across different groups. If age verification tools are inaccurate, some minors may still have or gain access to platforms, while users who are over sixteen may be wrongfully denied access to their accounts. This creates a fairness problem because the system may not distribute its burdens equally.

Additionally, there are concerns that certain groups might be more likely to experience errors or bias depending on how the technology is designed and tested. If some users are unfairly excluded or required to provide more proof than others, then the policy may be unjustifiable under the principle of justice. Justice also raises questions about access because not all users may have the same ability to provide identification or complete verification steps. As a result, even if the policy applies to all groups equally, its effects may not be equitable when practiced. From a justice perspective, one question becomes: Does the policy protect minors in a fair, accurate, and accessible way?

When considering the dilemma with the value of safety in mind, the primary concern is to keep minors away from platforms considered harmful. If social media is understood as a space that can expose users to significant risks, then age verification systems can be seen as a tool for creating safer online communities. However, safety is complicated because the methods used in age verification systems may create their own risks. For example, collecting identity documents or facial data may make users vulnerable if that information is mishandled or exposed. This means that safety should not be measured only by whether minors are blocked from platforms, but should also include whether the systems used to block them are secure and trustworthy for users. This means safety would support age verification systems only if users' information was handled in a protected manner.

Now I will analyze this issue through a deontological lens, which evaluates whether actions are morally right based on duties and obligations rather than their outcomes. Deontology focuses on whether decisions respect moral rules and responsibilities, regardless of whether they produce the best consequences. It asks what obligations governments, platforms, parents, and individuals have toward one another. From a deontological perspective, this issue centers on competing duties between the government and platforms. The government has a duty to protect minors when risks are significant, especially when parents or guardians cannot reasonably protect children from those harms alone. This duty stems from the principle of Parens Patriae, and the Merriam-Webster definition of Parens Patriae is, “the state in its capacity as the legal guardian of persons not sui juris and without natural guardians, as the heir to persons without natural heirs, and as the protector of all citizens unable to protect themselves” (Merriam-Webster). In this case, the Australian government is saying that age verification systems are necessary because social media platforms pose predictable risks to minors. Additionally, deontology also emphasizes the duty to respect autonomy, privacy, and individual rights. However, if users are required to share personal information in order to participate in digital spaces, then the government and platforms have a duty to make sure that this information is properly protected, limited, and secured. From this perspective, age verification is only ethically justified if it protects minors in a necessary and proportionate way while also safeguarding the privacy rights of other users.

Deontology also highlights the responsibility of platforms in this issue. As stated previously, under the ban, platforms are responsible for enforcing age restrictions. This gives them a duty to implement systems that are accurate, fair, and protective of user privacy. Platforms may violate their responsibility to users if they use unreliable tools or fail to protect stored information. Platforms have a duty to make sure their enforcement methods do not create additional harm because they control access to their environments. A deontological analysis would ask whether each stakeholder is fulfilling its proper duty, with the government’s duty being to protect minors, parents’ duty being to guide and protect their children, the platform's duty to enforce the ban using age verification systems responsibly, and all of these stakeholders having a duty to respect users’ privacy and well-being.

From a utilitarian perspective, the ethical question is whether age verification systems produce more overall benefits than harm. If these systems successfully prevent minors from accessing platforms shown to have dangerous or inappropriate content, then they may reduce the risk of minors being exposed to the potential mental, physical, psychological, and neurological harms of social media. Widespread harm reduction for minors would provide a strong justification for the usage of age verification systems. However, the benefits of protection must outweigh the harms caused by the enforcement methods. If age verification introduces the risks previously stated, then the overall benefit of the policy would be reduced. If the policy protects some users while creating privacy risks for others, the justification for the systems is weakened.

Utilitarianism also requires looking at whether the system works in practice.  If age verification is inaccurate or inconsistent, then the policy would fail to reach its intended goal while still introducing privacy burdens. For example, if some minors were able to bypass the system while some older users were incorrectly blocked, then there is less of an overall benefit of the policy. Additionally, if users respond to age verification by moving to less regulated platforms, the policy may shift harm rather than reduce it. If the system can be implemented in an accurate way that protects privacy, then it can still be justified. However, if enforcement creates exclusion or other safety risks, then it would not produce the greatest good overall.

Platform Design and The Platforms’ Responsibility

The second ethical problem concerns the role of platform design and whether social media companies hold responsibility for creating environments that may be harmful to minors. Autonomy is the ability to self-govern and make independent decisions. When looking at the situation with the principle of autonomy in mind, it is important to remember that minors technically do not have autonomy, as autonomy is the right to self-govern, and autonomy for minors is still developing. On one hand, some might argue that minors choose to use social media and should learn to regulate their own behavior. On the other hand, this assumes that their choices are fully independent decisions when, as stated previously, platforms are engineered to encourage repeated engagement. If algorithms are designed to manipulate attention, then users may feel like they are choosing freely, even though their behavior is being shaped by platform design. This is especially important for minors because they may not have the cognitive capacity to realize they are being influenced. Autonomy also includes freedom from coercion, and for some teens, social media feels compulsory because their peers are using it. Therefore, the manipulative design of social media platforms can weaken autonomy by making it harder for minors to choose when to stop, what to view, and how much time to spend online.

When analyzing this situation through the lens of paternalism, the focus shifts to whether it is justified to limit individual freedom in order to protect individuals from harm. This connects closely to parens patriae because both ideas concern whether the government has a responsibility to protect minors when they may not be able to fully protect themselves. Paternalism is often considered more acceptable when applied to minors, as they are viewed as not yet fully capable of making informed, rational decisions. If platforms are designed in ways that encourage addictive behavior or expose minors to harmful content, then restricting access can be seen as a protective measure. From this perspective, the government is responding to an environment that already limits freedom through coercion.

This makes the ban more justifiable as restrictions are aimed at protecting minors from platforms that exploit their vulnerabilities. However, under the ban, there is still a dismissal of individual differences, meaning the ethical question becomes whether manipulative design creates enough risk to justify a broad access restriction, or whether a less restrictive form of government intervention, such as requiring platforms to change addictive design features, would be more ethically justified. At the same time, the ban may also pressure platforms to change their designs in order to reduce the need for such broad restrictions in the future. 

When looking at the situation through the principle of non-maleficence and the value of safety, the focus is on the obligation to avoid causing harm and protecting minors. If algorithms repeatedly expose minors to harmful content or make it difficult for them to stop scrolling, then the platform poses a significant risk. This shifts the ethical focus from individual misuse to systemic design. The concern is that platforms are built to encourage unfettered consumption of content in a way that is unhealthy for minors. Platforms become more ethically blameworthy if they profit from engagement while knowing that their design may harm developing users. From this perspective, platforms have a responsibility to reduce harmful content and avoid designing systems that predictably encourage harmful behavior, especially for minors. However, many platforms also have financial responsibilities to owners or shareholders to maximize engagement and earnings. This creates a conflict between their responsibility to protect vulnerable users and their incentive to keep users active on the platform. 

From a deontological perspective, the issue of manipulative design relates to the duties and responsibilities of platforms, the government, and parents. Platforms have a duty to avoid creating intentionally harmful environments, especially for vulnerable users like minors. If a platform is structured in a way that exploits attention, encourages addictive patterns, or takes advantage of developing brains, then it may be violating its duty not to exploit users. Parents have a duty to guide their children, and minors have a developing responsibility to make safe choices, but because of platforms’ design, control, and profit from the digital environments minors use, platforms have a duty not to design systems to make those choices harder. If a company knowingly creates features that predictably increase risk, then responsibility shifts toward the institutions designing and profiting from the system. This supports the idea that responsibility should not fall only on families or the government. From this view, platform responsibility is important because platforms control the environment that introduces harm to minors.

If platforms fail to fulfill their duty to avoid harm, the government may have a duty to step in to protect minors. This connects to Parens Patriae because the state has a responsibility to protect children when risks are serious, and families cannot reasonably manage them alone. Social media design can be difficult for families to manage because parents do not directly control the recommendation systems, algorithms, or engagement features. Although parents may control devices, set rules, or monitor what their children access, they cannot fully control the design of the platforms themselves. This means that responsible parents can struggle to protect their children from the harm that platforms introduce. However, the government’s duty to protect must still be balanced with the duty to respect parental authority and individual autonomy. Overall, a deontological perspective shows that when platforms do not meet their duty not to exploit users, government intervention can be justified, but only if the policy protects children while still leaving parents a meaningful role in guidance, supervision, and family decision-making. This would depend on whether the ban supports parents rather than replacing them entirely, and whether it is regularly evaluated to determine if it is actually reducing harm without creating unnecessary burdens for families. 

From a utilitarian perspective, the key question is whether regulating manipulative platform design would produce the greatest overall benefit. If addictive features and algorithmic amplification contribute to widespread mental health and behavioral harms, then reducing those features could improve overall well-being. This would be especially beneficial for minors because they are more vulnerable to environments designed to exploit attention and have more difficulty regulating use. A utilitarian framework would support intervention if it decreases the harm social media can expose users to. However, it would also need to consider the previously stated benefits that platforms provide, including communication, entertainment, information, and community. These benefits are especially important because some minors use social media to maintain friendships, access support, and stay connected to communities that may not be available offline. This means that utilitarianism would not support a broad restriction on minors’ access if less restrictive ways could reduce harm while preserving some of the benefits of social media.  For example, requiring safer design standards or changing recommendation systems could potentially reduce harm while preserving some benefits. From this perspective, platform regulation may create a stronger net benefit than relying only on broad age-based limits that prevent minors from creating or maintaining accounts on covered platforms. Utilitarianism also focuses on where intervention can have the greatest effect. If the problem is caused partially by platform design, then focusing only on individual users may not produce the best outcome. Parents can set boundaries, and minors can be educated, but neither group has control over the algorithms that shape online behavior. This suggests that regulating platforms directly could reduce harm at the level of the platforms instead of placing the burden entirely on families.

If companies are required to design less addictive environments for their platforms, more users could benefit, including minors. However, if regulation is poorly designed or too harsh, it could reduce access to beneficial forms of communication and support. From a utilitarian perspective, a policy that combines platform responsibility with reasonable protections for minors may be more effective than a policy that treats access restriction as the main solution. Overall, a utilitarian perspective suggests that the best policy is the one that reduces the greatest amount of harm caused by manipulative platform design while still preserving the benefits of social media that support communication, information, and community.

Blanket Ban and Individual Differences

The third ethical problem concerns whether a blanket ban can fairly account for individual differences among minors. This issue connects paternalism and parens patriae because both involve the government limiting freedom in order to protect children from harm. Paternalism focuses on whether it is justified to restrict individual choice for someone’s own protection, while parens patriae gives the state a protective role when minors may not be able to fully protect themselves. A blanket ban may therefore be justified because it protects young people from environments that exploit their developing capacities.

However, paternalism becomes more ethically concerning when it is too broad or dismissive of individual differences. A blanket ban treats all minors under sixteen as equally vulnerable, even though maturity and family support vary significantly. This can make the policy feel like strong paternalism because it removes choice as opposed to guiding or supporting it. It may also undermine trust if minors feel that decisions are being imposed without their input. This means that paternalism supports some intervention, but it also raises the question of whether a broad age-based restriction on covered platforms is more forceful than necessary.

Autonomy is also relevant because the ban affects minors’ developing independence. By limiting exposure to harmful or manipulative environments during critical developmental stages, a policy that restricts minors’ access to covered social media platforms may protect future autonomy. At the same time, it may undermine emerging autonomy by removing opportunities to practice judgment, self-regulation, and responsible digital decision-making. This is especially important for older adolescents, who may be closer to developing the capacity to make independent choices. The policy may fail to recognize gradual development if all minors who are under sixteen are treated identically. This is why less restrictive alternatives, youth participation, guided use, and education are ethically relevant. A policy that protects minors while still allowing some guided independence can better balance autonomy and safety than a strict blanket ban.

From a deontological perspective, the blanket ban raises a conflict between the government’s duty to protect and its duty to respect parental authority and individual autonomy. Parents traditionally hold a primary duty to guide and protect their children, including teaching them how to navigate online risks. They are also able to make individualized decisions based on their child’s maturity, needs, and family values. A blanket ban may interfere with this parental duty by replacing individual family judgment with a national rule. This is why the policy can be criticized for overstepping into a space that is traditionally governed by families. From this perspective, the government should not override parental decision-making unless there is a clear moral duty to do so. However, deontology also recognizes that parental authority is not unlimited, because if the risks are significant and families cannot reasonably manage them alone, then the government may have a duty to intervene.

Parens Patriae provides the strongest deontological justification for the ban. Under Parens Patriae, the state has a duty to protect children when they are vulnerable and unable to fully protect themselves. The government can argue that social media poses a predictable and serious risk to minors, especially because, as discussed previously, platforms are designed to exploit attention and encourage compulsive use. If this is true, then treating minors as fully autonomous consumers would be unfair because their decision-making is still developing. However, the government’s duty to protect must be balanced against the duty to respect families and avoid unnecessary interference in private life. From a deontological perspective, the blanket ban is ethical only if it is necessary to fulfill the government’s duty to protect minors from harm that cannot be managed at the familial level.

From a utilitarian perspective, a blanket ban can be justified if it produces a clear net benefit for the largest number of minors. The overall benefit of the ban would be significant if the policy reduces exposure to the harms of social media. A universal rule may also be easier to enforce than a more individualized system, which could make it more effective in practice.

However, utilitarianism must also consider the harms created as a result of treating all minors the same. Some teens may lose access to meaningful support networks or educational information. This is especially important for marginalized teens, as stated previously, because they may depend on online spaces more than other minors. Utilitarianism requires evaluating how many people benefit, who is harmed, and how serious those harms are.

A utilitarian framework also raises the question of whether a more targeted policy could produce better outcomes. If younger children are more vulnerable than older adolescents, then a gradual approach might protect those most vulnerable while allowing more independence for others. Similarly, regulating specific design elements could be more beneficial than banning broad access if some platforms or features are more harmful than others. If the same public health goals could be achieved through less restrictive policies, then utilitarianism may favor those alternatives. However, a universal rule may be more defensible if less restrictive approaches are ineffective or too difficult to enforce. From a utilitarian perspective, utilitarianism would support the ban only if it produces a clear improvement in overall well-being after accounting for the unequal harms it may create.

Harm Reduction and Loss of Benefits

The final ethical problem concerns whether the ban causes more harm than it prevents by limiting minors’ access to the benefits of social media. The principle of non-maleficence is central to this issue because the ban is meant to prevent harm. Allowing unrestricted access can expose minors to preventable risks of social media, and if these harms are widespread in addition to being preventable, then restricting access can be understood as an effort to avoid harm. This is especially relevant when considering the previous point that social media platforms are designed in ways that make it hard for minors to regulate their own use.

However, non-maleficence also requires considering the harms caused by the ban. A blanket restriction may lead to increased isolation, loss of support networks, and migration to less safe or unregulated platforms. From this perspective, the ethical challenge is determining whether the ban reduces overall harm caused or introduces new harms that weaken its justification.

Beneficence also applies because the policy aims to promote the well-being of minors. The ban may be viewed as acting in the best interests of young people if limiting social media reduces the harms felt by minors. This connects to the idea that short-term distress does not necessarily mean the policy is overall harmful. For example, some teens may respond with anger, sadness, or resistance when access is removed, but this could reflect how deeply social media has become integrated into their daily lives. At the same time, beneficence also requires recognizing the positive roles social media can play. For some teens, especially those who are isolated or marginalized, as stated previously, social media provides many benefits. The question is whether the ban promotes well-being more effectively than less restrictive alternatives.

Safety is also important in this issue because restricting access may make minors safer in some ways but less safe in others. On one hand, the ban may reduce exposure to the harms of social media, such as grooming or exposure to harmful content. This supports the idea that the government is acting preventively. On the other hand, safety is not guaranteed by restriction, so if minors use VPNs or access content without logging in, they may lose built-in safety features like reporting tools or content filters. This helps show why a policy that is intended to be protective can be ineffective in practice if minors find a way around it. From a safety perspective, the ban is ethically justifiable if it actually makes minors safer and does not push them into less visible spaces.

Justice is also important in this issue because the policy is applied equally to all, but it may not affect everyone equally. On one hand, a universal ban can promote equality by applying the same rule to all minors, regardless of background or level of parental support. This can be especially important for minors who lack resources or guidance. A universal policy can create a baseline level of protection for everyone. However, justice also requires considering equity, not just equality. Some teens could rely on social media for its benefits, such as connection, support, identity exploration, or access to information, especially those in marginalized communities. For those teens, losing access may create a heavier burden than it does for teens with strong support systems. As a result, the policy can protect some minors while harming others. From a justice perspective, the ethical issue is whether the benefits and burdens of the ban are distributed fairly.

From a deontological perspective, the government has a duty to prevent foreseeable harm, especially when that harm affects vulnerable populations such as minors. The state has a moral obligation to intervene if social media creates predictable harms that affect minors. This duty becomes stronger if families cannot reasonably manage the risks alone, especially because parents do not control the design of social media platforms. Under this reasoning, restricting access can be seen as a way to protect minors from environments that they are not fully equipped to navigate. However, deontology also requires that the government avoid creating new harms while trying to prevent existing ones. If the ban leads to isolation, loss of support, or migration to more dangerous platforms, then the policy may conflict with the duty to protect. From a deontological perspective, the ban is only justified if it fulfills the duty to prevent harm without unnecessarily violating other duties related to autonomy, family authority, and well-being. 

Deontology also highlights the importance of responsibility across stakeholders. Parents have a duty to guide their children and help them develop safe digital habits. Minors have a developing responsibility to engage thoughtfully, but this responsibility is limited by their still-developing judgment. Platforms have a duty to avoid creating harmful environments, especially if their design encourages addictive behavior. As stated previously, the government has a duty to step in when risks are too serious or too widespread for families to manage alone. The ban may not fully support the duties involved if it removes access without addressing platform design, parental support, and education. From this view, the strongest ethical approach is the one that reduces harm while distributing responsibility among governments, families, minors, and platforms. 

From a utilitarian perspective, this issue depends on whether the ban produces a net reduction in harm. The strongest argument in favor of the ban is that social media is associated with many harms, and if reducing access decreases these harms for many minors, then the policy may increase overall well-being. Utilitarianism must also consider the benefits that are lost, such as communication and other benefits of social media, and as stated previously, these benefits may be especially important for marginalized groups. The ban is not automatically justified by the protective intention that the government had.

Utilitarianism also requires looking at unintended consequences. If the ban pushes minors towards unregulated spaces or causes families to experience more conflict, the overall benefit is reduced. At the same time, short-term distress felt by a minor does not mean the policy is harmful in the long run; it reflects how strongly social media is embedded in daily life. If the ban leads to healthier development over time, then some short-term discomfort may be ethically acceptable. However, if the long-term effects include isolation or other harms of removing social media, the policy may fail to maximize overall well-being. Ultimately, from a utilitarian perspective, the ban is justifiable if real-world evidence shows that it improves overall well-being more than it harms it.

Conclusion

The question of whether governments should restrict minors’ access to social media reflects a broader ethical tension between protection and autonomy, and between individual choice and collective responsibility. Throughout this analysis, it has become clear that each perspective reveals different dimensions of the issue, emphasizing competing values such as safety, autonomy, justice, and well-being. Additionally, a more nuanced understanding of the conditions under which such a policy may be ethically justified emerges.

From a deontological perspective, the central issue is the distribution of responsibility. Parents, governments, social media platforms, and minors all hold competing duties. Parents are responsible for guiding and protecting their children, tailoring decisions to individual needs, and preserving future autonomy. Governments, under the principle of parens patriae, have a duty to protect vulnerable populations when risks are significant and cannot be managed at the family level. Meanwhile, social media platforms bear responsibility for designing environments that do not exploit psychological vulnerabilities.

Minors themselves hold a developing responsibility to engage thoughtfully with digital environments and make safe choices, though this responsibility is limited by their still-evolving capacity for judgment and self-regulation. These overlapping obligations make it difficult to assign responsibility to any single stakeholder. Ethical justification depends on whether the government’s intervention appropriately balances its duty to protect with its obligation to respect parental authority and individual autonomy.

From a utilitarian perspective, the focus shifts to outcomes and overall well-being. The ban may reduce widespread harm associated with social media use, including anxiety, cyberbullying, and exposure to harmful content, potentially benefiting a large population of young users. However, these benefits must be weighed against the loss of positive aspects of social media, such as connection, identity formation, and access to support networks. Additionally, unintended consequences, such as increased isolation or migration to less regulated platforms, complicate the net benefits of the ban. A utilitarian analysis, therefore, supports the ban only if it produces a clear net reduction in harm after accounting for both its intended and unintended consequences.

From my perspective, a deontological framework is more applicable to this situation than a utilitarian one because the core issue is about duties and responsibilities rather than outcomes. Utilitarianism focuses on whether the ban produces more overall good than harm, and as a result, it can overlook the importance of respecting parental authority and individual rights. In contrast, deontology can better answer the ethical question of when government intervention is justified, because it emphasizes the responsibility of the state to protect vulnerable populations while also recognizing limits on that power. In this case, I believe that it is ethically justified for a government to restrict minors’ access to social media under specific conditions, including when there is clear and reliable evidence of significant harm, when those harms cannot be managed at the familial level, and when platforms are designed in ways that exploit minors’ developing cognitive and emotional capacities. Under these conditions, the government has a duty to intervene in order to protect minors and preserve their future autonomy. However, this intervention must also be limited and have a goal of minimizing unnecessary interference with parental decision-making. Additionally, it should allow for a certain amount of guided independence, especially for older adolescents.

This analysis also suggests that responsibility should fall on the platforms in addition to the government and families. Social media companies have a duty to design environments that do not intentionally exploit attention or encourage addictive patterns of use, especially for younger users. Ethical responsibility shifts toward those designing and profiting from these systems if platforms are structured in ways that predictably create harm. Additionally, this would reduce the need for extreme forms of government intervention. Overall, I believe that Australia's ban on social media can be ethically justified if it remains open to revision and remains proportionate. The goal should be to support parental authority in situations where the risks of social media exceed what families can manage on their own.

Looking forward, the ethics of Australia’s policy will depend heavily on its continued implementation and long-term impact. One of the most important next steps in terms of public policy is ongoing monitoring and evaluation. Governments must collect data on mental health outcomes, social behavior, and access to support systems to determine whether the ban has achieved its intended goals. Early evidence from similar policies and emerging legal cases suggests that the relationship between social media and harm is complex, and that interventions may not produce uniform results across all groups. Continuous assessment is essential to ensure that the policy remains responsive to real-world outcomes and not static assumptions.

In addition to monitoring intended benefits, policymakers must remain attentive to unintended consequences. These may include increased use of unregulated platforms, reduced access to support communities, or disparities in how the policy affects different populations. Enforcement mechanisms, particularly those involving age verification, also raise concerns about privacy, bias, and accessibility. If these systems disproportionately impact certain groups or introduce new risks, they may undermine the overall ethical justification of the policy. As a result, future policy development should prioritize flexibility and adaptability, allowing for adjustments based on emerging evidence.

Another component of ethical policy-making is continued dialogue among stakeholders. This includes not only governments and experts, but also parents, educators, and, importantly, young people themselves. Because minors are directly affected by these policies, incorporating youth perspectives can help ensure that regulations reflect their lived experiences and needs. Open dialogue can also build trust and reduce resistance, making policies more effective and ethically grounded.

The global context further complicates the issue. Countries such as France, Brazil, Malaysia, and Spain are exploring or implementing similar restrictions, each shaped by their own cultural values and policy priorities. These variations highlight how each society must determine how to balance protection and freedom based on the national values they prioritize. Recent legal developments in the United States also suggest a shift in how responsibility is understood. Cases such as the California social media addiction trial (Allyn) and the New Mexico ruling against Meta (New Mexico Department of Justice) signal increasing recognition of the role that platform design plays in shaping user behavior and risk. These cases reinforce the idea that responsibility may extend beyond individuals and families to the companies that create and profit from these digital environments. As legal and regulatory frameworks evolve, they may influence how future policies are designed and justified.

Ultimately, the ethical question concerns how society should respond to harm caused by social media. The analysis presented in this paper suggests that restrictions on minors’ access to social media can be ethically justified, but only under specific conditions. These include clear evidence of significant harm, the inability of families to manage risks independently, and the implementation of policies that minimize unnecessary interference with autonomy and parental authority. At the same time, such policies must be continuously evaluated, adjusted, and informed by the perspectives of those they affect.

In conclusion, Australia’s social media ban for those under sixteen represents an important and evolving attempt to address the challenges posed by digital environments. It highlights the difficulty of balancing competing ethical values in a rapidly changing technological landscape. Rather than offering a definitive solution, the ban serves as a case study in how societies navigate questions of responsibility, protection, and autonomy. Moving forward, ethical policymaking in this area will require careful analysis, adaptability, and a commitment to ongoing reflection as new evidence and perspectives emerge.

Works Cited

Age Check Certification Scheme. "Age Assurance Technology Trial: Part B — Methodology & Ethics." Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts, Australian Government, Aug. 2025, www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/aatt_part_b_digital.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2026.

---. "Report." Age Assurance Technology Trial, Australian Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts, 31 Aug. 2025, ageassurance.com.au/report/. Accessed 25 May 2026.

Alaimo, Kara. "Use Court Rulings against Two Social Media Companies to Change Kids' Relationships with Tech, Expert Says | CNN." CNN, © 2016 Cable News Network, 27 Mar. 2026, www.cnn.com/2026/03/27/health/social-media-kids-parent-wellness. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Allyn, Bobby, host. "Jury Holds Meta and Google Liable for Role in Young Woman's Mental Health Issues." Technology, 25 Mar. 2026. NPR, www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5746125/meta-youtube-social-media-trial-verdict. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Amirthalingam, Jashvini, and Anika Khera. "Understanding Social Media Addiction: A Deep Dive." Cureus, 27 Oct. 2024. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.72499. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Archbold, Lisa, and Faith Gordon. "Australia's Big Social Media Pivot: The Ban, the Rollout, and the Real-World Consequences." Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, 2 Mar. 2026, ials.sas.ac.uk/news-events/blogs/australias-big-social-media-pivot-ban-rollout-real-world-consequences. Accessed 10 May 2026.

"Australian teens access social media via VPNs despite age ban." Tech In Asia, 11 Mar. 2026, www.techinasia.com/news/australian-teens-access-social-media-via-vpns-despite-age-ban. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Beutel, Manfred E., et al. "Somatic Symptom Load in Men and Women from Middle to High Age in the Gutenberg Health Study - Association with Psychosocial and Somatic Factors." Scientific Reports, vol. 9, no. 1, 14 Mar. 2019. Nature Briefing, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-40709-0.

Bhaimiya, Sawdah. "Countries around the world are considering teen social media bans – why experts warn it's a 'lazy' fix." CNBC, © 2026 Versant Media, 8 Apr. 2026, www.cnbc.com/2026/04/08/teen-social-media-ban-countries-tech-experts-warning.html. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Blackburn, Marsha. "Mark Zuckerberg Faces the Jury — but Not the Facts." The Washington Post, 20 Feb. 2026, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/02/20/mark-zuckerberg-faces-jury-not-facts/. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Blackwood, Fiona. "How are Australian parents responding to the social media ban for under-16s?" ABC Net, @ 2026 ABC, 19 Dec. 2025, www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-20/social-media-ban-teenagers-parents-respond/106163362?utm_. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Borak, Masha. "Australia expands age checks to AI chatbots, app stores, porn sites and more." Biometric Update.com, © 2026 Biometrics Research Group, 9 Mar. 2026, www.biometricupdate.com/202603/australia-expands-age-checks-to-ai-chatbots-app-stores-porn-sites-and-more. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Caldwell, Sabrina. "Ask an Expert: Why the social media ban for kids is an ethical turning point." UNSW Sydney, 7 Dec. 2025, www.unsw.edu.au/news/2025/12/ask-an-expert--why-australia-s-social-media-ban-for-kids-is-an-e. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Candelier, Emma. "What Australia's Youth Social Media Ban Reveals." UVA Data Science, © Copyright 2026 by the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 21 Jan. 2026, datascience.virginia.edu/news/what-australias-youth-social-media-ban-reveals. Accessed 10 May 2026.

"Cerebral Cortex." Cleveland Clinic, edited by Cleveland Clinic, © 2026 Cleveland Clinic, 23 May 2022, my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/23073-cerebral-cortex. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Dalomba, Frances. "Pros and Cons of Social Media." Brown Health University, © 2026 Brown University Health, 1 Mar. 2022, www.brownhealth.org/be-well/social-media-good-bad-and-ugly. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Delogu, Franco, et al. "The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Use of Social Media: A Cross-national Comparison." Acta Psychologica, vol. 255, May 2025, p. 104888. ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104888. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts. "Age Assurance Technology Trial—Final Report." Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts, Australian

Government, 31 Aug. 2025, www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/media/publications/age-assurance-technology-trial-final-report. Accessed 25 May 2026.

---. "Social media minimum age." Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts, Australian Government, www.infrastructure.gov.au/media-communications/internet/online-safety/social-media-minimum-age. Accessed 25 May 2026.

Dhir, Amandeep, et al. "Online Social Media Fatigue and Psychological Wellbeing—A Study of Compulsive Use, Fear of Missing Out, Fatigue, Anxiety and Depression." International Journal of Information Management, vol. 40, June 2018, pp. 141-52. ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.01.012. Accessed 10 May 2026.

"Don't ban teenagers from social media." The Economist, The Economist Newspaper Limited, 12 Feb. 2026, www.economist.com/leaders/2026/02/12/dont-ban-teenagers-from-social-media. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Dudley-Nicholson, Jennifer. "'Perhaps not fully accepted': Confusion with social media ban just days away." The New Daily, 1 Dec. 2025, www.thenewdaily.com.au/life/social-media-life/2025/11/30/social-media-ban-teens-families. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Engels, Barbara, and Jennifer Potthoff. "Social Media, Markets and Minors: A Behavioral Ethics Perspective. The Tension Between Protection and Autonomy." EconStor, Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft (IW), Köln, 2025, www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/333398/1/1942592523.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2026.

"eSafety requires providers of AI companion chatbots to explain how they are keeping Aussie kids safe." eSafety Commissioner, 23 Oct. 2025, www.esafety.gov.au/newsroom/media-releases/esafety-requires-providers-of-ai-companion-chatbots-to-explain-how-they-are-keeping-aussie-kids-safe. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Fardouly, Jasmine. "Potential Effects of the Social Media Age Ban in Australia for Children Younger than 16 Years." The Lancet Digital Health, vol. 7, no. 4, Apr. 2025, pp. e235-e236. ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landig.2025.01.016. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Gao, Junling, et al. "Mental Health Problems and Social Media Exposure during COVID-19 Outbreak." PLOS ONE, vol. 15, no. 4, 16 Apr. 2020, p. e0231924. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231924. Accessed 10 May 2026.

"The Guardian view on Australia's social media ban: dragging tech companies into action." The Guardian, © 2026 Guardian News & Media, 17 Dec. 2025, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/dec/17/the-guardian-view-on-australias-social-media-ban-dragging-tech-companies-into-action. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Ha, Ahnul, et al. "Digital Screen Time and Myopia." JAMA Network Open, vol. 8, no. 2, 21 Feb. 2025, p. e2460026. JAMA, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.60026. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Hawes, Tanya, et al. "Unique Associations of Social Media Use and Online Appearance Preoccupation with Depression, Anxiety, and Appearance Rejection Sensitivity." Body Image, vol. 33, June 2020, pp. 66-76. ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.02.010. Accessed 10 May 2026.

---. "Unique Associations of Social Media Use and Online Appearance Preoccupation with Depression, Anxiety, and Appearance Rejection Sensitivity." Body Image, vol. 33, June 2020, pp. 66-76. ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.02.010. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Hoge, Elizabeth, et al. "Digital Media, Anxiety, and Depression in Children." American Academy of Pediatrics, vol. 140, no. Supplement_2, 1 Nov. 2017, pp. S76-S80. American Academy of Pediatrics, https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-1758g. Accessed 10 May 2026.

"How Australia's pioneering social media ban is impacting teens." PBS News, © 1996 - 2026 NewsHour Productions, 25 Mar. 2026, www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-australias-pioneering-social-media-ban-is-impacting-teens. Accessed 10 May 2026.

"How Social Media Affects Your Teen's Mental Health: A Parent's Guide." Yale Medicine, 2026 Yale Medicine, 17 June 2024, www.yalemedicine.org/news/social-media-teen-mental-health-a-parents-guide. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Huamani, Kaitlyn, and Barbara Ortutay. "Instagram and YouTube found liable in landmark social media addiction trial in California." PBS News, 1996 - 2026 NewsHour Productions, 25 march 2026, www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/instagram-and-youtube-found-liable-in-landmark-social-media-addiction-trial-in-california. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Hughes, Eléonore. "Brazil rolls out law boosting online protection of minors." AP News, The Associated Press, 19 Mar. 2026, apnews.com/article/brazil-internet-regulation-social-media-cd5d8f51ecbc0bb28f43a741dd95bc05. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Inserra, David. "The Kids Are Alright in Australia, No Thanks to the Social Media Ban." Cato Institute, 14 Apr. 2026, www.cato.org/blog/kids-are-alright-australia-no-thanks-social-media-ban. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Junco, Reynol. "Too Much Face and Not Enough Books: The Relationship between Multiple Indices of Facebook Use and Academic Performance." Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 28, no. 1, Jan. 2012, pp. 187-98. ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.026. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Kato, Brooke. "Parenting influencers must pay their kids for using them in videos now: 'You have to be ethical.'" New York Post, 3 July 2024, nypost.com/2024/07/03/lifestyle/parenting-influencers-must-pay-their-kids-for-using-them-in-videos-now-you-have-to-be-ethical/. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Koopman, Chris. "I get Australia's social media ban. They still did it wrong. | Opinion." USA Today, 2026 USA Today, 20 Dec. 2025, www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2025/12/20/australia-government-social-media-ban-us-schools/87736566007/. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Kross, Ethan, et al. "Facebook Use Predicts Declines in Subjective Well-Being in Young Adults." PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 8, 14 Aug. 2013, p. e69841. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069841. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Laxton, Brandon. "3 Ways Social Media Changes Your Brain." Five Towns College, ©2026 Five Towns College, 3 Jan. 2023, www.ftc.edu/3-ways-social-media-changes-your-brain/. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Lee, David S., et al. "Social Media Use and Its Link to Physical Health Indicators." Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, vol. 25, no. 2, Feb. 2022, pp. 87-93. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2021.0188. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Livingstone, Helen. "How Does Australia's Under-16 Social Media Ban Work?" BBC, 2026 BBC, 22 Jan. 2026, www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyp9d3ddqyo.

"Majority of Parents Support Under-16 Social Media Ban, but Kids Worry About Lost Connections." Family Online Safety Institute, edited by Family Online Safety Institute, FOSI, 9 Dec. 2025, fosi.org/majority-of-parents-support-under-16-social-media-ban-but-kids-worry-about-lost-connections/. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Najjar, Farah. "Why is Australia banning social media for teenagers?" Aljazeera, © 2026 Al Jazeera Media Network, 9 Dec. 2025, www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/12/9/why-is-australia-banning-social-media-for-teenagers#:~:text=Why%20is%20Australia%20doing%20this,

lead%20globally%E2%80%9D%20on%20online%20safety. Accessed 10 May 2026.

"New Mexico Department of Justice Wins Landmark Verdict Against Meta." New Mexico Department of Justice, edited by New Mexico Department of Justice, 24 Mar. 2026, nmdoj.gov/press-release/new-mexico-department-of-justice-wins-landmark-verdict-against-meta/. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. "Social media." Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/your-privacy-rights/social-media-and-online-privacy/social-media. Accessed 25 May 2026.

"Parens patriae." Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/parens%20patriae. Accessed 10 May. 2026.

Parliament of Australia. "Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024." AustLII, Australasian Legal Information Institute, 21 Nov. 2024, www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/bill/osammab2024419/index.html. Accessed 25 May 2026.

Petrequin, Samuel. "French lawmakers approve ban on social media for kids under 15." PBS News, 1996 - 2026 NewsHour Productions, 27 Jan. 2026, www.pbs.org/newshour/world/french-lawmakers-approve-ban-on-social-media-for-kids-under-15. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Petrillo, Sophia. "What Makes TikTok so Addictive?: An Analysis of the Mechanisms Underlying the World's Latest Social Media Craze." Brown Undergraduate Journal of Public Health, 13 Dec. 2021, sites.brown.edu/publichealthjournal/2021/12/13/tiktok/. Accessed 10 May 2026.

"Potential risks of content, features, and functions: The science of how social media affects youth." American Psychological Association, edited by American Psychological Association, © 2026 American Psychological Association, Apr. 2024, www.apa.org/topics/social-media-internet/youth-social-media-2024. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Project, Cade. "Australia expands age verification rules to AI chatbots, app stores and online platforms." Cade Project, Civil Society Alliances for Digital Empowerment (CADE) 2024, 9 Mar. 2026, cadeproject.org/updates/australia-expands-age-verification-rules-to-ai-chatbots-app-stores-and-online-platforms/. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Psychology Today Staff. "Extroversion." Psychology Today, 2026 Sussex Publishers, www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/extroversion. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Rossini, Carolina. "Two verdicts in two days: How American courts are rewriting the rules for Big Tech and children." The Conversation, © 2010–2026, The Conversation US, 26 Mar. 2026, theconversation.com/two-verdicts-in-two-days-how-american-courts-are-rewriting-the-rules-for-big-tech-and-children-279401. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Santos, Melissa. "How Social Media Impacts Mental Health and Changes Brain Activity, and What to Do." Connecticut's Children, 4 Feb. 2025, www.connecticutchildrens.org/growing-healthy/how-social-media-impacts-mental-health-and-changes-brain-activity-and-what-do. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Shensa, Ariel, et al. "Social Media Use and Depression and Anxiety Symptoms: A Cluster Analysis." American Journal of Health Behavior, vol. 42, no. 2, 1 Mar. 2018, pp. 116-28. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.5993/ajhb.42.2.11. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Sian, Galvin Lee Kuan. "Malaysia Is Banning Under-16s From Social Media. But Will It Work?" Tech Policy.press, 20 Jan. 2026, www.techpolicy.press/malaysia-to-ban-under16s-from-social-media-but-will-it-work/. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Sidoti, Olivia, and Michelle Faverio. "Teens, Social Media and Technology 2024." Pew Research Center, © 2026 Pew Research Center, 12 Dec. 2024, www.pewresearch.org/internet/2024/12/12/teens-social-media-and-technology-2024/. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Singer, Natasha. "The Lesson of A.I. Literacy Class: Don't Let the Chatbot Think for You." The New York Times, 23 Feb. 2026, www.nytimes.com/2026/04/04/technology/ai-chatbots-teen-roleplay.html. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Siu, Antoinette. "Incoming teen social media ban in Australia puts focus on creator impact and targeting practices." Digiday, Digiday Media, 6 Dec. 2024, digiday.com/media/incoming-teen-social-media-ban-in-australia-puts-focus-on-creator-impact-and-targeting-practices/#:~:text=Incoming%20teen%20social%20media%20ban,

creator%20impact%20and%20targeting%20practices&text=As%20Australia%20sets%20a%20social,of%20dollars%20in%20creator%20revenue. Accessed 10 May 2026.

"Social media." Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20media. Accessed 10 May. 2026.

"Social media 'ban' or delay FAQs." eSafety Commissioner, 4 Jan. 2026, www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions/faqs. Accessed 10 May 2026.

"Social Media and Youth Mental Health." U.S Department of Health and Human Services, 19 Feb. 2025, www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/reports-and-publications/youth-mental-health/social-media/index.html. Accessed 10 May 2026.

"Social media ban." Unicef Australia, © 2026 UNICEF Australia, www.unicef.org.au/unicef-youth/staying-safe-online/social-media-ban-explainer?srsltid=AfmBOop-ESy3iV2uvFmOH-vkQSzyoI_kzbI2xLwo5PY3obTBK_45hIUh. Accessed 10 May 2026.

"Spain social media ban for under‑16s: here's what we know so far, and what we don't." The Conversation, 2010–2026, The Conversation US, 12 Feb. 2026, theconversation.com/spain-social-media-ban-for-under-16s-heres-what-we-know-so-far-and-what-we-dont-275712. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Steers, Mai-Ly N., et al. "My Friends, I'm #SOTALLYTOBER: A Longitudinal Examination of College Students' Drinking, Friends' Approval of Drinking, and Facebook Alcohol-related Posts." DIGITAL HEALTH, vol. 5, Jan. 2019. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1177/2055207619845449. Accessed 10 May 2026.

"Teens, screens and mental health." World Health Organization, edited by World Health Organization, 25 Sept. 2024, www.who.int/europe/news/item/25-09-2024-teens--screens-and-mental-health#:~:text=More%20than%201%20in%2010,life%20due%20to%20

excessive%20use. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Timmer, Miya, editor. "Family YouTube channels grow in popularity amongst concerns over child privacy and exploitation." Knight Life, © 2026 • FLEX Pro WordPress Theme by SNO, 13 May 2025, knightlifenews.com/35439/opinion/family-youtube-channels-grow-in-popularity-amongst-concerns-over-child-privacy-and-exploitation/#:~:text=Thousands

%20of%20family%20channels%20thrive,hard%20for%20me%20to%20understand.%E2%80%9D. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Uhls, Yalda T., et al. "Benefits and Costs of Social Media in Adolescence." Pediatrics, vol. 140, no. Supplement_2, 1 Nov. 2017, pp. S67-S70. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-1758e. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Vidal, Carol, and Jennifer Margaret Katzenstein. "Social Media and Mental Health in Children and Teens." John Hopkins Medicine, © 2026 The Johns Hopkins University, 25 Sept. 2024, www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/social-media-and-mental-health-in-children-and-teens#:~:text=Lack%20of%20sleep:%20Research%20

indicates,the%20worsening%20of%20depressive%20symptoms.%E2%80%9D. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Wahlquist, Calla. "It took one massacre: how Australia embraced gun control after Port Arthur." The Guardian, © 2026 Guardian News & Media, 14 Mar. 2016, www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/15/it-took-one-massacre-how-australia-made-gun-control-happen-after-port-arthur. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Walsh, Shelley. "The Top 10 Social Media Sites & Platforms." Search Engine Journal, © 2026 Search Engine Journal, 7 Nov. 2025, www.searchenginejournal.com/social-media/social-media-platforms/. Accessed 10 May 2026.

"What are children and youth rights?" Australian Human Rights Commission, 27 Mar. 2025, humanrights.gov.au/resource-hub/by-resource-type/publications/children-and-youth-rights/guides/about-childrens-rights-0. Accessed 10 May 2026.

"What is Australia's under-16 social media ban? The world-first law explained." The University of Sydney, 5 Dec. 2025, www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2025/12/05/what-is-australias-under-16-social-media-ban-the-world-first-law-explained.html. Accessed 10 May 2026.

"Which platforms are age-restricted?" eSafety Commissioner, 30 Mar. 2026, www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions/which-platforms-are-age-restricted#self-assessment-notifications. Accessed 10 May 2026.

Zubair, Ujala, et al. "Link between Excessive Social Media Use and Psychiatric Disorders." Annals of Medicine & Surgery, vol. 85, no. 4, 27 Mar. 2023, pp. 875-78. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1097/ms9.0000000000000112. Accessed 10 May 2026.