This has to be sarcasm.

It certainly feels like it.

If it did not have that snark though, one could make the point that the data could still be 'deanonimitized'.

It's not sarcasm. It doesn't actually matter at all if Google Maps "tracks" you. But this pointless legislation decided it does and now people have to settle for surely inferior alternatives.

You're saying the "pointless legislation" had a point. Just not one that you agree with.

This is a guess, but I suspect the point had to do with data privacy. Maybe someone wrote legislation that prohibits public websites from hosting ads, or third party browser-tracking software. And google maps fits that.

In the parent comment, there's also this bit:

> but it is a lot cheaper than google maps

If true, this is an example of government regulations working as intended, and saving money.

If an alternative was cheaper and of comparable quality then legislation shouldn't have been required for it to be chosen by whoever was in charge of the decision.