Social media platforms are instruments which can, among other things, influence moral perspectives and alter self-perception. Therefore, social media can be an influential tool in the cultivation of autonomy and virtue. Kant argued children must progress through multiple stages of development to become autonomous moral agents (Formosa, 2014). Kant believed children must be disciplined, cultivate morality through a genuine desire for propriety, and avoid artificial tools throughout development (Formosa, 2014; Suprenant, 2010; LaVaque-Manty, 2006). Thus, for a child to develop into a morally sound and agentic adult, they, while largely being self-guided, must be restricted (LaVaque-Manty, 2006). Kantian philosophy understands artificial tools as devices which provide a mere means to an end; aiding an instrumental reliance. Arguing “the more ‘artificial tools’ one uses in teaching children, the more dependent they will remain on ‘instruments’”(LaVaque-Manty, 2006, p.377). Kant presents instruments as Reliance on instruments leads to an “[un]thorough” (LaVaque-Manty, 2006, p.378) education where children are unable to properly develop and appreciate moral actions. Therefore, restricting social media, an instrument which deters from genuine development helps children flourish.
Despite arguing for children’s agency in all other aspects of education, Kant believed rules’ structure aided in cultivating character (Frierson, 2021). This is because to “‘ refuse [the child] everything … discipline[s] his will’” (Frierson, 2021, p.1099). Kant argues rules are enacted for a duality of reasons. Either making children realize not all wishes can be fulfilled, or to prevent harm (Frierson, 2021). Though one could argue the social media ban prevents harm, regardless of the justification, the Australian government's restriction is justified. The mere act of restriction aids in the cultivation of agency and virtue by helping children understand the limits of desire.
Moral character is predicated on acting virtuously out of respect for moral law (Surprenant, 2010). According to Kant, socialization and self-value teach one how to obtain a moral character (Formosa, 2014). Therefore, instilling a child with self-respect and empathy aids in crafting a moral character. Social media has the potential to lower self-value and empathy in younger adolescents. In Krause & Krause’s 2024 study, which analysed the relationship between girls' social media use and body image, they did not find a strong correlation between increased social media use and changes in self-perception. However, they did argue social media use “reinforce[s] … behaviors” (p.7) by encouraging users to continue engaging with sites. Further, in a longitudinal study of multicultural adolescents body image over a ten year period, Gonzaga et. al. (2023) discerned “adolescents [tend] to become increasingly dissatisfied with their bodies.” (p. 8), as they age, lowering self-value. Thus, if social media reinforces behaviors, and there is an existing tendency for adolescents to become increasingly insecure, further harms could be entrenched. By banning social media, the Australian Government prevents the potential for self-doubting behaviors to be continuously reinforced, increasing self-value and cultivating moral character.
The Australian government justified banning social media on the basis of protecting children and assisting caregivers (Parliament of Australia, 2024). In doing so, their actions align with Kant’s moral law, as motivations for acting are morally justified. One can deduce the Australian government acted with moral virtue as the social media ban may cause less incentive for industry, and less profit, throughout Australia. Adolescents make up a significant advertising demographic on social media. For example, in 2022, Instagram alone made $4.1 billion dollars in profit advertising to children aged 0-17 in the US (Raffoul et. al., 2023). Though Australia and the US are not one-to-one economies, one can deduce advertising to youth is immensely profitable. If the government were acting on a moral basis which was self-interested, they would aid in social media’s pervasiveness to encourage the potential for industry and profit. However, the benefits of these actions are mere means, and would not have moral significance. Therefore, the Australian government's actions align with Kantian morality, placing humanitarian interests above mere means.
Although age restrictions help keep us safe online, they open the door for potential database attacks that can lead to identity fraud or targeted phishing attempts. Consider the case of Persona’s database vulnerability (Arntz, 2026; Spadafora, 2026). Online services that adapted Persona’s age verification system now have their users’ information hanging on a single thread of exposed code, despite telling their users that their information was being deleted (Roblox Corporation, 2026). This raises a potential question: what would happen if the exposed code was maliciously exploited? Billions of users would have their names, emails, locations, and even government-issued IDs made publicly available across the internet. For many users, the non-consensual storing or personal information would be considered a direct violation of informational privacy, and under a Kantian perspective, it violates Persona’s duty to protect others from harm. Are age restrictions really worth it when it comes at the cost of our own autonomy? With data leaks in mind, it would seem that the answer to this question would intuitively be no. Holding personal information on a third party server without consent is inherently wrong, and it is worsened by the continuous threat of data leaks. With this in mind, we need to rethink our approach for implementing age verification or consider a whole new approach.
Social media has gone relatively unmonitored ever since its integration into everyday life. It wasn’t until recently that governments started to take action (Robinson et. al., 2025), but are age restrictions the best way to tackle this problem? While Australia’s move towards a minimum age requirement seems justified by high suicide rates and mental health impacts, it may hinder global connection and challenge freedom of expression for users under 16 years old (Van Mill, 2024; Jørgensen & Zuleta, 2020). Furthermore, the legislation does not fully account for certain online platforms, such as YouTube, that can still present hate speech (Parliament of Australia, 2024). Hate speech is considered a criminal offense under many legal structures, so why not make it apply online as well? This would eliminate the need for strict age requirements on many social platforms and would create a safer online environment. While this does challenge our freedom of speech, rights and freedoms are meant to be exercised in a way that does not violate another person’s autonomy (Van Mill, 2024). Thus, an online legal infrastructure that fulfills this expectation is still justified. It would not only keep users safe online, but it would also eliminate the need for online age restrictions.
Social media has become a primary function of identity formation, communication and knowledge acquisition for youth. Social learning theory and developmental sociology suggests that individuals acquire social norms, communication skills, and cultural understanding through participation in shared environments. Social media has become a globalized shared environment and omission from the process can have significant impacts on peer interaction and identity construction (Ahmmad et. al., 2025). Early omission from social media may also lead to a stronger intensification of echo chambers. If a child is brought up in a hermeneutically restrictive environment, they may gravitate towards familiar content and assimilate into ideologically homogenous networks later on. Simulation and research have shown that when an individual repeatedly returns to familiar content, misinformation spreads more effectively and polarization increases (Nguyen, 2018). Whereas if content is not restricted, a child may develop more critical thinking skills needed in the online world such as evaluating sources, recognizing bias, and the ability to engage with opposing views constructively (Sindermann et. al., 2020). Overall, social media leads to greater exposure to contrasting beliefs and views.
Restrictions for children on social media platforms limit modern forms of expressive freedom. Limitations on freedom of expression for children and youth exclude them from dominant sites of discourse and limit their ability to develop modern communication competence, and their ability to look for and evaluate information. This lack of communication competence can lead to alienation and cyber-bullying in online and in person spaces (Reddy, 2025). Nissenbaum and Brunton (2012) argue that freedom of expression and its effects go farther than just limiting children online. She mentions that an important factor in digital participation involves managing your own personal information while navigating and understanding online surveillance. If freedom of expression online is not granted at a young age, that person will not have the experience necessary to act responsibly within the imperfect, surveilled online spaces (Nissembaum & Brunton 2012). As well, if freedom of expression through online avenues such as social media is limited at a young age, when unlimited access is granted, that person may be less likely to engage with and express ideas online because it is something that they are unfamiliar and/or inexperienced with. Limiting social media use is not fair to the children because their freedom of expression in contemporary culture is being censored.