Going to try to respond to this in good faith. I know there is some intrinsic bias what with Google being an ad company, but I'll try to ignore that and assume they wish to protect users within Chrome, advertising division be damned.
On point one, regardless of cookie blocking or not, these more aggressive means of tracking users are going to happen. If they (ad programs) can eke out extra data points on users, that's more value that translates into revenue for them so of course they're going to do it. They're saying they're going to do what they can to mitigate fingerprinting, face value, that's great, but it's like anything: a game of cat and mouse where when one opportunity closes, they'll chase another.
Point two is going to be a hard sell. They're asking users to care about advertisers when users have had issues with advertisers before (massive string of redirects to a "congratulations, click here for your free Amazon gift card/Xbox/whatever" page that screws with the tab's history to the point you can't even get back to where you were before requiring closing the tab anyone?). I don't disagree that advertisers are a necessary evil on the Internet (sites want to make money, we're usually not paying them, so forth and so on), but at the same time, some networks are historically bad for user experience: not in a "ah man, that banner ad is annoying" way, but in a "it just hijacked the page and now I'm trying to do a bunch of stuff to get back to the content/away from the site" way.
I don't think Google has its customers best interest in any of this. They try to make it seem like it at face value, but to deliver real privacy, they wouldn't get the data they need for their own business.
An example from the article- "First, large scale blocking of cookies undermine people’s privacy by encouraging opaque techniques such as fingerprinting."
I'm pretty sure fingerprinting can happen either way. It's just easier for Google to control cookies and prevent users from blocking cookies because cookies will provide more exact data on what Google wants.
They'll sell the point that they will keep your data safe from 3rd parties... but they will use it for their purposes however they please.
On point one, regardless of cookie blocking or not, these more aggressive means of tracking users are going to happen. If they (ad programs) can eke out extra data points on users, that's more value that translates into revenue for them so of course they're going to do it. They're saying they're going to do what they can to mitigate fingerprinting, face value, that's great, but it's like anything: a game of cat and mouse where when one opportunity closes, they'll chase another.
Point two is going to be a hard sell. They're asking users to care about advertisers when users have had issues with advertisers before (massive string of redirects to a "congratulations, click here for your free Amazon gift card/Xbox/whatever" page that screws with the tab's history to the point you can't even get back to where you were before requiring closing the tab anyone?). I don't disagree that advertisers are a necessary evil on the Internet (sites want to make money, we're usually not paying them, so forth and so on), but at the same time, some networks are historically bad for user experience: not in a "ah man, that banner ad is annoying" way, but in a "it just hijacked the page and now I'm trying to do a bunch of stuff to get back to the content/away from the site" way.