Digital paternalism and adolescent autonomy: ethical reflections on Australia's under-16 social media ban.

While social media has become an important medium for adolescents in terms of identity development, belonging, news consumption and public participation, the recommendation algorithms and attention-economy-based design features of platforms can shape adolescents' preferences and weaken their autonomous decision-making processes. This study provides a principle-based bioethical analysis of Australia's regulation (Online Safety Amendment [Social Media Minimum Age] Act 2024; effective: 10 December 2025), which aims to prevent users under the age of 16 from creating accounts on certain social media platforms and maintaining existing accounts, within the framework of digital paternalism and adolescent autonomy. Beauchamp and Childress' principle-based bioethical approach was adopted as the methodology; the regulation was discussed in terms of the principles of respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. The analysis suggests that while the ban can be ethically justified as a protective public health intervention in the context of mental health risks and potential harms of usage, there are debates that the age-based categorical limit does not sufficiently consider the principle of evolving capacities and adolescents' rights to expression/participation. Furthermore, the absolute age ban may generate secondary and unintended harms, such as weakening social support and help-seeking channels, increasing digital inequalities, and directing users towards less secure online environments. The evaluation conducted in this article concludes that, instead of absolute age-based bans, it is recommended to adopt gradual autonomy models, guide companies towards protective and safe design approaches for children, impose a duty of care specific to children on platforms, ensure algorithmic transparency, and adopt a rights-based approach to child protection.