There's a new lobbying push for chat control at the E.U.

So, I think I'll cover some of misinfo being spread briefly.

1) It is argued that all is well with existing scanning / prevention initiatives.

It is inarguable that existing initiatives have not led to legitimate expression being censored or chilled. They very much have been.

2) It will lead to "technological improvements" in the future which will lead to fewer issues.

There is no evidence that this will happen, and even if it did, it still wouldn't resolve the core problems with this proposal.

3) Law enforcement agencies support it.

Yes, well, law enforcement will likely support anything which "might" be helpful, or which might reduce effort expended.

4) Accuracy rates are high.

Are they? Even if they were, at scale, it would still lead to many false positives, discriminative impacts, chilled expression, or disclosures of sensitive information to hostile governments.

5) The largest U.S. based companies already appear to do many of the things you want them to do here (although, I think there are quite a few areas where they go too far, I won't elaborate on it in this post).

I won't comment on whether that is a violation of privacy or not, however, isn't it misleading to suggest that little is being done?

6) Appealing to the notion that the Internet is a "lawless space".

The Internet has never been a "lawless space". The regulatory structure of the Internet tends to be the way it is to be protective of various human rights, such as due process, freedom of expression, and privacy.

Putting a disproportionate focus on "fighting child abuse" at "all costs" would push these contingencies out of alignment, and would create many harms in it's own right.

Further contrary to the notion of the Internet being a lawless space, cases of child abuse are vigorously investigated and prosecuted by law enforcement agencies from across the globe.

7) Public opinion supports it.

We've already been over how and why that survey is flawed. But, if you want a brief recap of one manner in which it is, the people who relied on it boasted about how they put a strong influence on people participating in it to answer a particular way.

8) End-to-end encryption is not threatened.

This is complete bullshit and everyone knows it. Playing silly little semantics games does not change that basic fact.

9) Prevention is a major focus of this proposal.

This sounds like a euphemism for censorship, privacy intrusions, and due process violations. This seems likely to hit legitimate use of a service. This makes me even warier of this proposal.