Please provide a link, I could only find this, which suggests Google has reversed course:

https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/google-is-phasing-out-thir...

> By undermining the business model of many ad-supported websites, blunt approaches to cookies encourage the use of opaque techniques such as fingerprinting (an invasive workaround to replace cookies), which can actually reduce user privacy and control.

https://blog.chromium.org/2020/01/building-more-private-web-...

I'm going to copy paste my older comment on this:

I find their "removing 3rd party cookies will incentivise businesses to rely on fingerprinting" discourse dangerous.

It implies that other browser vendors (Mozilla, Safari/WebKit, new Edge) are in fact making the Web a more dangerous place.

I believe it's dangerous because it creates a harmful, unproductive PR narrative—people might just assume this is a true statement, without learning about both sides of the problem. I'm not trying to strip anyone of agency, I just don't think most of my friends would have time to research this topic and might decide to follow the main opinion instead.

The answer I'd like to hear: Yes, it does push some actors towards fingerprinting, but preventing fingerprinting should be dealt with regardless. Changes should happen both on legislative and browser-vendor level.

Sounds a bit like: "By locking your door, you only encourage thieves to break your window, which can actually increase the damage they cause you."

Precisely.

Thank you for the additional background.

Thanks for asking, we need more comments like yours