But it's so obviously ideologically bent against privacy that it reads more like manufacturing consent than it does "giving the reader options to make their own choice."

Did we read the same article? It came across as very pro-privacy and anti-tracking to me. It’s well written in the sense that it explains the issue to a general audience without resorting to breathless scare mongering.

"We need to revolutionize how we think about our data and what value it holds" (last sentence)

reads like so much sleeper propaganda for The Selfish Ledger style abuses.

I don't think any discussion of the trade-offs between privacy and tracking is complete unless the horrifying abuses of tracking are also discussed, like government contractors spying on people without cause.

> "We need to revolutionize how we think about our data and what value it holds" (last sentence)

The last line of the article for me is different: “We need to revolutionise how we think about our own data and what value it truly holds.” (Emphasis mine)

Which in context:

> Lastly, it’s good to remember nothing truly comes for free. Software costs money to develop. If you’re not paying towards that, then it’s likely you – or your data – are the product. We need to revolutionise how we think about our own data and what value it truly holds.

Is a very clear pro-privacy statement to me. This is our data and is owned by us and we should revolutionize how we think about that.

I mean, whatever new quirks are being used lead to the same results, so for us endusers it doesn't matter if there will be cookies or not