I don't think ChatControl is a good idea. I also think that if you want to convince people of that, using the same misleading language tactics as the other side is not the way to go.

> These scanning systems get it wrong most of the time. [...] Irish law enforcement confirms this: only 20.3% of 4,192 automated reports actually contained illegal material.

Wrong most of the time that they report something. Technically correct, although a somewhat tricky formulation.

Literally next paragraph:

> Even with hypothetical 99% accuracy (which current systems don’t achieve), scanning billions of daily messages would generate millions of false accusations.

This is a different accuracy percentage: here the author means 99% of all messages, not only the reported ones, which the previous 20.3% referred to. Furthermore, these two paragraphs together sound very fishy: if current systems are not accurate enough to generate "millions of false accusations", presumably (?) they generate at least that. But with the 20.3% true positives fraction, that would mean hundreds of thousands true accusations per day.

Which part am I misunderstanding?