But within that, there were some interesting nuances.

Those with a “younger family” (77%) were more likely to support a ban than those with an “older family”.

Support for the ban was weakest (relatively speaking, at 62%) among those aged 18 to 24 and generally stronger the older the recipient.

Support was also relatively weak, at 69%, among those who described themselves as “innovators” or early adopters of products and strongest among the self-described tech “laggards”, at 83%.

Having said that, some of the innovators who did support a ban had some of the most cutting comments about social media.

The survey didn’t capture people’s political affiliation but it did find that support for a ban was weakest among those earning less than $75,000 (perhaps also correlating with the 18 to 24 age group‘s relative lack of enthusiasm for a ban) and stronger with higher earners.

“It’s as addictive as crack and twice as harmful,” said an Auckland man earning over $150,000.

On the other side of the fence, a Canterbury woman, also in the $150,000-plus bracket, said, “A ridiculous bill – which would be policed how? Students need to learn how to use social media for good. It’s a part of life. There are adult MPs who misuse social media, so why should competent 16-year-olds who aren’t using it for nefarious purposes be penalised?”

Other telling comments included:

“I communicate with my grandchildren over WhatsApp.”

“No way to police it. It’s easy to make accounts with a fake age.”

“Waste of taxpayers’ money.”

“Social media and its algorithms promote material that is harmful to the psyche of developing minds, including horrific world news, and opens possibilities of bullying or mature content before their time and in general does more harm than good for young adults.”

“Our 16-year-olds are nearly adults. Taking away their internet would be cruel and would be treating them as little children. Surely there are better ways of protecting them?”

“Yes, there are some areas that are problematic but this is for parents to negotiate.”

The top reasons for supporting a ban were:

The top reasons opposing the ban:

The experience across the Tasman, so far, indicates that the “enforcement challenges” camp could have a point.

READ MORE: Under-16 social media ban: Three pain points as Australia grapples with how to implement it

Australia’s Federal Parliament passed an under-16 social media ban in November last year – which is scheduled to be implemented in December this year.

But there are still unresolved questions, including which – if any – age verification technology is practical (the legislation prohibits sharing government ID such as a passport) and which services should be included.

There are a couple of interesting background political factors.

In Australia, Labor originally proposed an under-16 ban but was dawdling with no real political will to get it off the line. It was a groundswell of popular support that saw it eventually pushed ahead and passed by 102 votes to 13 in the House of Representatives (and a big majority in the Senate) as politicians on both sides of the aisle sensed which way the wind was blowing.

There were shades of the ultimately very popular cellphone ban in schools here.

In New Zealand, National has gone from the lean-back of a Private Member’s Bill (dependent on being picked from a biscuit-tin ballot to even have a shot) to the more lean-forward strategy part of its “programme of work” – which means the Government could put forward legislation for a ban, if it leads to that, on a set timetable.

Nothing is set at this point but Education Minister Erica Stanford – a go-to when the PM wants action – has been set on the case.

And there have been signs Act is softening its opposition as figures on the right like Jamie Beaton, Anna Mowbray and Cecilia Robinson speak out strongly in favour of an under-16 ban.

Beaton weighed in with: “Social media algorithms, designed by some of the smartest artificial intelligence engineers on the planet, are more addictive than many drugs … I see shocking numbers of young people with ADHD-like symptoms from extensive social media use.”

Not everyone on the right supports a ban. The New Zealand Initiative’s Eric Crampton has raised privacy, practicality and philosophical objections. But momentum is building.

Lawyer shares his personal AI horror story

There’s no doubt artificial intelligence (AI) is the Next Big Thing and every white-collar worker needs to be adopting it and keeping up with the play.

But tech specialist lawyer Rick Shera reminds us that we’re still very much in the early days – which means being very mindful of the technology’s pitfalls at this point.

“AI-powered recording and transcription tools have become incredibly popular, promising a simple way to capture every detail from meetings – whether it’s a board discussion, a client meeting or even just a brainstorming session,” Shera wrote in a post for Lowndes Jordan, where he is a partner.

“However, before you hit that record button, it’s important to understand the potential issues, especially when dealing with confidential or sensitive information.”

He offered his own “horror story”.

“I was recently on a call and left it, with others remaining to discuss items that did not involve me,” Shera said.

“Later – and I think this was an automatic function of the application – I received a transcript link and could see the conversation that continued after I’d logged off.

“Thankfully, nothing confidential was discussed in that part.

“But, more worryingly, the AI attributed a statement, made by someone else after I’d left, to me!”

In its present state of development, “AI transcription isn’t foolproof. It can mishear, misinterpret, and even invent things,” Shera said.

“Imagine an incorrect transcript later being used as evidence that you remained in the meeting or said things that you did not. It may be hard to prove otherwise. It is therefore critical to check all recordings and transcripts carefully at the time, whether you are the recorder or the person being recorded.”

That process eats up a lot of the time savings from AI.

On a related note, the New York Times reported this week that while AI is getting more powerful, its hallucinations (errors as the imperfect artificial intelligence tries to fill in blanks) are getting worse and “will never go away”.

So there’s no guarantee that a presentation, document summary or spreadsheet created by an AI is error-free, either.

Min-Kyu Jung, the ex-Bell Gully solicitor who recently raised $28m for his legal automation start-up Ivo, earlier told the Herald that while his start-up’s software can be used to create legal contracts and carry out other work far faster than a human: “Ultimately, large language models [LLM] are probabilistic and will still sometimes make errors.

“Lawyers should be expected to independently verify LLM outputs in the same way they might verify the work product of a junior lawyer before giving it to a client.”

‘Google tax’ dies a quiet death

The digital services tax or “DST” – a flat 3% tax on all of Google, Facebook and other Big Tech firms’ New Zealand revenue – has been a dead man walking for some time.

Former Finance Minister Grant Robertson first floated the idea of a 3% or 6% DST in 2019 but then put it on the backburner, even through most of Labour’s absolute-majority second term.

The Digital Services Tax Bill (for a 3% tax) was introduced in the final days of Parliament before the 2023 election. It didn’t have time to get to a select committee, let alone pass.

It was assumed the National-led Government would quash it. The amount involved is small (an estimated $98 million per year), unless you’re willing to take on Google, Facebook et al about how they report their New Zealand revenue net of hundreds of millions of inhouse expenses booked offshore.

And official advice was that even that small take could be nullified by retaliatory taxes (and that was before US President Donald Trump kicked off his latest tariff push on “Liberation Day”).

But Revenue Minister Simon Watts surprised by keeping it on the table … that is, until this week, when it was discharged two days ahead of Budget 2025.

“We have been monitoring international developments and have decided not to progress the Digital Services Tax Bill at this time,” Watts said.

“A global solution has always been our preferred option, and we have been encouraged by the recent commitment of countries to the OECD work in this area.”

But there was already little danger of the OECD finally getting an effective global regime together before Trump pulled the US – home of most Big Tech, of course – from its efforts.

Chris Keall is an Auckland-based member of the Herald‘s business team. He joined the Herald in 2018 and is the technology editor and a senior business writer.