It does seem like a "lobby for more surveillance". Or can you think of a way to "detect, report and remove..." content without examining the contents of every single message sent on the platform?
What separates this from other "appeal to pity" tactics is that this bill is the source of this bill. This isn't a group of EU equivalent democratic/republican lawmakers who are pushing for a surveillance bill because they have their wallets padded with intelligence contractor money. This is a philanthropist who has track record of sustained, devoted, high-effort actions in fighting against this dark industry.
I suppose the counter argument remains the same though, right? Whomever is granted the authority to surveil will ultimately misuse their access. Admittedly, I can't pull myself away from agreeing with that. What a mess.
In which case innocent persons will end up on watch lists or being harassed by intrusive investigations.
I understand that an enterprising young hacker can encrypt it manually, but that's akin to someone becoming a gunsmith. It takes effort and usually the people that go through the training are the types of people we trust with the knowledge anyway.
Now I've personally worked on software to help stop the spread of CSAM, so I have my biases here, but I also understand the dangers of unmitigated surveillance. But just as we trust our democracies with munitions, I think we should do the same with surveillance, provided that courts and the rule of law are strongly enshrined. From what I know, this is the case in my country of Canada.
I want to live in a world that is safe and free. It takes work and discussions to achieve both at the same time, but I have faith that we can do it if we try.