We must question mental health benefits of social media for under 16's. My call to support the age legislation.

Yesterday I spoke with decision makers from all sides of politics at Parliament house in a private briefing. It was an hour long discussion and an absolute privilege to be there. The second time in two weeks that on a day I have visited announcements of critical significance have been made. In this briefing I answered questions and took decision makers through the evidence that concerns me which has been submitted to the Joint Select Committee around the age ban.?

Today, I respond to yesterday's backlash by many in the media and on LinkedIn. I wish us to critically question the idea that mental health can be supported by an audience.

It is not useful to be pulled out of the moment when we face a challenge.

We need to act differently during and after a challenge to build wellbeing. Being pulled out of the moment by an audience (in which you get dopamine hits from disclosing), is not a helpful way to cope.??

After a challenge it is not useful to dwell on errors with an unregulated group audience where you get attention for mistakes and disappointment and come to rely on it.??This is quite different to a space in which you communicate with one person or text those who know you, can empathise and help you think about what to do differently.

The new Australian legislation does not threaten emotional support or wellbeing. The internet is not being removed. Text messaging is not being removed. ReachOut's Peerchat, KidsHelpline 'MyCircle' and the like have not been threatened.

Importantly mental health arguments misconstrue the nature of effective social support.

We do not and should not require an audience to feel good, particularly not at this age but not at any age. Being social in the physical world is a wonderful part of life. One to one small social experiences that give you a lift (because you smiled at someone and they smiled back) remain an essential building block of a healthy community. Developing these skills and removing influences that detract from the desire to look at one another when we are together is crucial for our culture to cultivate. We need to focus on these tiny interactions to change our communities and rebuild healthy school cultures. Online life can not and should not replace offline life, especially not at this age.

The fundamental issue remains the addictive nature of these platforms. This legislation will change the norms and alter the business model for social media apps exploiting under 16's.

Other mechanisms will be needed as well?for all Australians.?These include?algorithm transparency, opting out of recommender systems, and the incorporation of safety by design principles. Researchers must have access to the same data these companies have to conduct research.

Australians need these changes. The ball has started rolling and we must support it to continue. We will need a multi-pronged approach so as not to undermine the great work that has been announced with yesterday's legislation.?The government is looking into mechanisms for these through the Digital Duty of Care legislation - a separate mechanism.

We do not want to build youth to be dependent on an addictive type of support for their mental health. An immediate safe audience feels good but it enables avoidance and escape. Psychologists know that these factors feed anxiety and depression, especially when they become entrenched reactions.

While voices in this debate may have good intentions we must critically question the basis of the arguments. This piece is written in response to yesterday's outcry. I will continue to run seminars showing the underlying evidence.