Something rarely mentioned in these discussions of EU's proposed "Chat Control" is that it only applies to certain "platforms"

Encrypted messaging not sent through one of these third party "platforms", i.e., "social media", would arguably be outside the scope of EU "Chat Control"

In other words, this proposed legislation does not require monitoring any internet user engaging in encrypted chats with any other internet user(s) as long as they avoid using a third party "platform" like the one run by Meta that is subject to the "Chat Control"

If a person believes that such encrypted chat is impossible/infeasible without the involvement of a third party such as Meta, then IMHO, this person has a more serious impediment to private conversation over the internet than EU proposed "Chat Control". But I would not trust any internet forum comment demonising the EU when what the EU is doing is regulating Big Tech

This proposed legislation may be detrimental to Meta's bottom line and so one can expect the usual public disinformation campaign where the problem is portrayed as "government surveillance" when in reality

(a) the problem is using third parties such as Meta to communicate, creating an easy partner/target for any government that wants surveiillance data

and

(b) Meta, not the government, is actually doing all the surveillance

and the EU keeps fining them for it. Big Tech companies like Meta need to ignore privacy norms in order to make money. That is the "business model". Surveillance. I cannot think of a worse choice of a third party through which to route private conversation