The think of the children lobbyists are really upset that Signal and pals exposed that they just had one guy from their org create twenty "orgs" with twenty websites to make supportive statements of, well, control.

Or that an org which sells scanning software created a separate org (staffed by one guy from the parent org) to try to shame companies into adopting their product.

Aside from that, they're upset that people noticed they're just using disturbing stories (or as I'd put it, constantly trying to stoke up a sense of "urgency") to try to block out any calm and rational discussion.

One appears to be conflating "Big Tech" with the Internet as a whole. However, it's pretty obvious that a company with ten employees, is distinctly different from Facebook which serves two billion users, and has many, many employees throughout the globe.

Though, simply because someone claims they're "reining in" "Big Tech" doesn't mean their arguments automatically have merit there either, because people who use such platforms also arguably have fundamental rights of their own.

If "Big Tech" is arguing in favor of fundamental rights, this is at worst a "Wow. The worst person you know has a great point" scenario (if you're not aware, that is an Internet meme).

Not to mention, that other than E2EE (which might include FB), any "regulation" is going to mainly hit smaller tech, rather than "Big Tech" who already do a lot of the things which lobbyists want them to do (even going way too far in a number of cases, something which advocates of control ever so conveniently ignore, and even work hard to try to spin as a "good thing").

End-to-end encryption exists for a number of reasons, and I cannot cover all of them in one post.

A very large one is as a response to the Snowden leaks, where we learnt that governments basically don't give a rat's ass about privacy, and have been secretly breaking established safeguards behind everyone's backs (every now and then, civil rights advocates discover they're *still* breaking safeguards).

In fact, that is also the primary reason that HTTPS has proliferated so widely across the web. Completely ignoring this historic context, as well as other arguments to it, is very disingenuous.

One, who is closely associated with a data broker, and a very small group of online conservative pseudo-intellectuals, and has voiced concerns about things including "trans rapists" (and has spent a fair bit of time trying to repair the reputation of the police), thinks that privacy advocates are "disingenuous".

Assertions like this might get a pat on the back from like-minded individuals. It doesn't really change the base facts.