I think on one side you have security. This means law enforcement, espionage and the increasingly relevant civil security industry. They have pretty straightfor

I think on one side you have security. This means law enforcement, espionage and the increasingly relevant civil security industry. They have pretty straightforward "pro" interests. You also have child protection advocates. They, perhaps rightly, are focused on their own agenda, not the greater picture. It's "not their job" to worry about freedom of speech and association. This side, like any scrutinized company or government department insisting that "it's a resource thing." IE, their doing all they can with what they've got. Doing better requires something external. More resources, more power, etc. They deliver estimates of how many more children can be saved if only X. On the other side is more vague. Esoteric digital freedom advocates. Abstract, ideological general freedom advocates. The concentrated, directly interested parties are the social media companies themselves. So first, social media companies do not want to be stuck in a debate where it's them vs child advocates. They don't want to make esoteric freedom arguments that they don't believe in anyway, and use these to counter child protection arguments. Second, regulation like this is often beneficial to incumbents. The DMCA, for example. Large incumbents can influence details of legislation, enough that they can at least live with the legislation. It also makes it harder to disrupt them from the outside. Under DMCA, record companies and film studios got what they wanted & social media companies got what they wanted.