Google does engage in fingerprinting in multiple of its products, but even if it didn't I don't think I would change my analogy. Google's position here is, "ob

Google does engage in fingerprinting in multiple of its products, but even if it didn't I don't think I would change my analogy. Google's position here is, "obviously you're going to have to let us track you some way, and our way (cookies) is better than fingerprinting." It's still blaming privacy-conscious users for the actions that advertisers have taken, because those unreasonable privacy-conscious people couldn't be content with just blocking some of the trackers. There's an underlying tone to this article that reads as, "you all messed this up because you didn't just leave well enough alone. Now we'll come in and fix it, but you're gonna have to compromise with us when we do." From my perspective -- no, users didn't break anything. This isn't our fault, and we should be allowed to broadly block cookies without being tracked in more pervasive ways. But, if it makes you feel better you can change a word in my characterization to read: > "If y'all had just handed over your wallet when we asked, they wouldn't have had to hurt you. So really, this is your fault."