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""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."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."It's just another Equifax settlement. "Yeah we offered it, but we never assumed that so many of you would take it. Be reasonable."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.This entire article is just insulting.