Chrome has to walk a fine line between what it does for privacy and what is says it does. So you have the protection against fingerprinting and at the same time you have the FLoC fiasco
The simplest explanation is that the Chrome developers genuinely want to protect privacy and also genuinely want to add features. Every browser has to make that trade off. There are plenty of fingerprinting vulnerabilities in Firefox and Safari too.
The reasoning here seems to be something like "Google is evil; X is an evil reason for doing Y; therefore Google must have done Y because of X". It's not a great argument.
I can only quote Johnathan Nightingale, former executive of Mozilla, from his thread on how Google was sabotaging Firefox [1]:
"The question is not whether individual sidewalk labs people have pure motives. I know some of them, just like I know plenty on the Chrome team. They’re great people. But focus on the behaviour of the organism as a whole. At the macro level, google/alphabet is very intentional."
That whole Twitter thread says nothing about fingerprinting or privacy. The first comment is close to gibberish, but seems to be mostly about some kind of Google office development project in Toronto.
You are literally following the parody argument schema that I mentioned in my previous comment. You make some vague insinuations that Google is evil, then attribute everything it does to non-specific evil motivations. Even if Google is evil, this kind of reasoning is completely unconvincing.
> That whole Twitter thread says nothing about fingerprinting or privacy.
I should've been more clear. In this case I was responding to this: "The reasoning here seems to be something like "Google is evil; X is an evil reason for doing Y; therefore Google must have done Y because of X". It's not a great argument."
> You are literally following the parody argument schema that I mentioned in my previous comment.
Because you have to look at the behaviour of the organism as a whole. If the shoe fits etc.
