> We are not opposed to end-to-end encryption, as long as it is implemented in a way that does not put children at risk. We are in favour of both strong privacy and children’s safety and urge social media companies to protect both.
Which basically means "we are not opposed to end-to-end encryption as long as the encryption is not end-to-end".
I don't believe it's inaccurate. That sentence is put out there early but the rest of the paragraphs go on to beg businesses not to turn it on. It plays as a way to get ahead of the argument but ends up countering itself at every turn.
> We are not opposed to end-to-end encryption.
I'm not commenting on the merits of this campaign, simply on the fact that the title is inaccurate.