Private messages aren’t end-to-end encrypted either. The so-called secret chats are end-to-end encrypted but are a major pain to use. I doubt that feature sees much use.
As said before: the whole E2E, CSAM diskussion is not really the issue here. This is afaik about complying mostly to very specific takedown requests (as telegram offers no legal address inside the EU) and more general platform regulations that require mechanisms to prevent illegal content. Telegram does not offer any E2E encrypted group chat and actually actively interferes in groups by pushing advertisements, so they should be able to also block illegal content.
Having said that I am no fan of installing law enforcement inside private companies. However, telegrams noncompliance with court orders is problematic particularly related to protecting human rights of 3rd parties in the digital age.
It means complying with an order from a judge. Just like every other social media or really any form of communications (including emails, phone calls, letters) that operate in France (and in the EU) do.
If you think the governments of the world do not have the metadata of every single phone call and at the very least an outside picture of every letter being sent by non-companies, then I have a boat te sell you.
The post office and the phone company refuse to cooperate with law enforcement and offer disposable phone numbers and means to move money without trace/attribution?
Or does it refer to public channels only?