Privacy Sandbox – Open standards to enhance privacy on the web
> "large scale blocking of cookies undermine people’s privacy by encouraging opaque techniques such as fingerprinting"<p>"If y'all had just handed over your wallet when we asked, we wouldn't have had to hurt you. So really, this is your fault."<p>More seriously, what Google is saying here is that privacy can't be mainstream. It's no different from the arguments that advertisers gave when they rejected DNT. They're willing to let a few privacy-minded people avoid being tracked, as long as that group never becomes a majority. But it was never their plan to get rid of tracking, every compromise they ever offered had the catch, "as long as it doesn't affect our bottom line."<p>It's just another Equifax settlement. "Yeah we offered it, but we never assumed that so many of you would take it. Be reasonable."<p>Heck that. If you genuinely believe that people should have a choice about privacy, then you have to accept that maybe the majority of people will decide they don't want cookies. You have to take a step back and consider that browsers that block cookies by default are just reflecting what their users already widely want; people want their browsers to protect them from tracking by default, without configuration.You're not offering users a choice, you're just mad that you can't use dark patterns to make users unsafe-by-default.<p>This entire article is just insulting.