It seems you are conflating transport encryption with encryption at rest. I can not imagine a scenario where encrypted end-to-end transit can "bite" you as there is no recovery scenario apart from snooping network operators/attackers.
Where people start to feel it is if you want the server in the middle to be decrypting and re-encrypting everything, because it's not that much for one user but it starts to add up for a million users. But the obvious solution there is to use E2EE and then it isn't doing that.
I've tried to make various tools and utilities for things like logging, auditing, inspection, etc, and have had to do self signed keys and a number of interesting hacks to work around encryption. Often times it's impossible.
It's thousands of times more likely that the authorized party is spying, snooping and stealing my information to package and resell it in open bidding data markets and trying to hide that fact and cover their tracks then they're trying to be bold protectors of my liberty against roving blackhat ne'er-do-wells. Although they'll run to that defense whenever necessary.
Ever see the amount of data trackers on say, a local news site? It's astounding, and they are the technically incompetent. Imagine what happens when people with the same wanton disregard for scruples knows what they are doing.
I've convinced myself at least that instagram listens to the microphone and services ads based on conversations. I have blackboxed tested this in many ways --- and that's the only way I can do it, blackboxed - that's the problem. I could lay out the tests if you want, none are of course definitive, they can't be, that's the point. It's uninspectable and can't be proven either way because it's encryption that none of us can inspect.
Like any other powerful party trying to hide information and abuse their subjects, they claim to actually be protecting us against the dark treachery that surely lies beyond the forest. Let's all tremble in fear and thank them for their service! Give me a break. It's a slight of hand, they've instead taken our digital stuff and protected against us from inspecting the process, the protections against an additional third party is merely a side effect.
If I can't turn encryption off and see what's going on OR if I can't inspect my own device then I don't trust the network OR the supposedly "trusted" party with access to it. I don't trust Google, or Facebook with access to my microphone or ad networks running on apps and you shouldn't either. If I can't inspect the contents of the payloads, then I don't know what's happening. Platitudes and assurance be damned, what data is going OTA, that's all that matters.
I understand there's brigading and hivemind against this basic reality, but I'm dedicated to reality, not to popular opinion.
I think the best one can do today with services like Facebook/Instagram is to use third-party clients, or, in lack of that, the web apps.
IMO DoH/DoT is the main venue where this tradeoff becomes obvious today; privacy with regards to infrastructure providers, or ability for the user to see/control what your software reaches out to?