I don't think it's possible to exist as a public-facing corporate entity without some kind of content scanning mechanism. If that were possible, then every chil

I don't think it's possible to exist as a public-facing corporate entity without some kind of content scanning mechanism. If that were possible, then every child abuser would simply move their data onto those platforms and they'd become untouchable. Even MEGA, which signals the virtues of privacy/security through the prominence of decryption keys on its UI flows, will still report illegal content to authorities and display a message saying so if content was removed for that reason. Any publicly traded company that touts perfect privacy cannot deliver what they are claiming, or they'd become the service of choice for every type of disenfranchised person - including child abusers. Apple has received much more flak than the average corporation over this issue because this fundamental impossibility of perfect privacy clashed with its own privacy signaling in a loud way, and the flurry of debate over the technical merits of the novel, widely shared on-device scanning solution caused much more scrutiny than the boring server-side scanning that has been ubiquitous for decades. But the fact is that no matter how Apple tries to approach the CSAM problem, it will ultimately have to weed out child abusers from its servers or be publicly and legally lambasted. That is what society has decided is best for the welfare of children, and as a result we will have to live with an imperfect level of privacy as provided by such entities.