> Wouldn't they always use fingerprinting if that is more powerful? Fingerprinting is less reliable and more difficult to use, but it's powerful enough that mu

> Wouldn't they always use fingerprinting if that is more powerful? Fingerprinting is less reliable and more difficult to use, but it's powerful enough that multiple companies will have a clear picture of your browsing history whether your browser blocks third party cookies or not. Fingerprinting is worse for users because you don't have control over it. If you open a private browsing window, close it, and open another one you're a different user from a cookie perspective but the same user from a fingerprinting perspective. > what will their (business and thus vital) interest in doing this probably be? My understanding from what Chrome has said publicly is that they're trying to get both (a) websites can make similar money from ads as they do now, keeping browsing free and (b) users have much more privacy than they do now, keeping third parties from being able to compile browsing histories for users. Users benefit from (a) because they value these sites and from (b) because they don't want their browsing histories leaked.