The solution to this conundrum is to decentralise these services, i.e. run your own XMPP server for your family and friends. Keep your own data where you can 'see' it, on 'the server under the stairs' with some distributed backups to 'devices under different stairs'.
This is no pie-in-the-sky statement, I've been running such a server for years and have installed several for others. System requirements and maintenance are minimal - you can run Prosody on a Raspberry Pi 1B if needed. Availability and reliability are high, it basically works as long as network connectivity and storage are available. The user experience largely depends on the client applications where Conversations on Android is probably the gold standard and in many ways comparable to Whatsapp.
When using OMEMO the server admin does not have access to cleartext communications so assuming clients are configured correctly there is not much to be gained from raiding the server. If some government entity wants to snoop on communications they'd have to gain access to at least one of the client devices since encryption is handled locally. Instead of backdooring centralised services run by Whatsapp or Signal or Telegram they'd have to get to a multitude of servers-under-stairs and client devices which makes it infeasible to use the 'dragnet approach' which is most likely the intended outcome of these backdoor laws.
Some decades ago at I heard Jello Biafra repeat his statement not to criticise the media but to become the media. This has happened, the (current incarnation of) legacy media is running on its last legs and has been overtaken by 'new' media. Here's a corollary to this statement:
Don't criticise the service providers, become the service provider
Use the internet as it was meant to be, a network of networks. Lots of networks, each running their own services with 'secure' communications between those services. I put secure in quotes because there might be a chance for some TLA or other organisation to break the encryption on one of those communication links. Even if they managed to do so they'd gain access to only a small fraction of the communications going on around the 'net.
But advocating for distributed communications only aids and abets criminals, won't you think of the children?
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. Criminals already use these services (and some of them have been broken/backdoored) so this is nothing new to them.
But you can't expect grandma to run her own server
No, I don't expect her to do so, she can use yours instead.
But but but but
You're starting to sound like a chicken.
Running this stuff is not hard. If you know how to do it, do so and help others to get started. While you're at it you can help them to secure their networks against intrusion by their service providers as well by making sure the ISP connection terminates at a router managed by the device owner, not the ISP. There is no reason to give the ISP access to your LAN since that only creates an incentive for those government entities to force the ISP to give them access to customer networks. The ISP should be used as IAP - internet access provider - and only be allowed to see whatever traffic you allow out of your network, not what goes on inside of it. That, though, is something for another post, another time.
I've been running services like this for decades, this works, it is not difficult and does not take that much time. It has only gotten easier over time, hardware has gotten cheaper and smaller, power use has gone down, performance has radically improved. This is not a pipe dream, it has been first my, then our reality for more than 30 years.
Don't criticise the service providers, become the service provider