The point of undermining confidentiality of communications (in law and practice), I think, is to herd the outlaws onto things like Encrochat and An0m - meaning fewer, softer targets (with likely much worse developers and lawyers than the mainstream communication services). That, and maybe picking up the occasional idiot outlaw still using a knowingly-backdoored mainstream service to discuss or commit their crimes.

We may see most mainstream services play along - maybe "voluntarily", as good citizens - because they would probably be quite happy to lose the dodgy contingent of their userbase. Let them be herded!

That does leave people who care about privacy, but aren't outlaws, with an awful dilemma - migrate to the few platforms that still offer confidentiality (along with the outlaws), and instantly make yourself a suspect - or give up and stay with the mainstream services, trusting that you'll be OK so long as you've got nothing to hide.

All of these are understandable forces and motivations - it'll be interesting to see how they net out. I do think the powers that be are overlooking what an appalling precedent / justification they offer, both for contemporary authoritarian powers in other countries, and the future authoritarians that from time to time form part of the government in our own countries.