I think it’s referring to Google saying FLoC is another fingerprinting vector.
> Not so, Google has suddenly now admitted, telling IETF that “today’s fingerprinting surface, even without FLoC, is easily enough to uniquely identify users,” but that “FLoC adds new fingerprinting surfaces.”
I agree the article takes a long time to get there. Maybe the author didn’t want to assume the Forbes general audience already knew the high-level details of FLoC.
> Not so, Google has suddenly now admitted, telling IETF that “today’s fingerprinting surface, even without FLoC, is easily enough to uniquely identify users,” but that “FLoC adds new fingerprinting surfaces.”
I agree the article takes a long time to get there. Maybe the author didn’t want to assume the Forbes general audience already knew the high-level details of FLoC.