Wait! How was it against third-party tracking, when its entire purpose was to present advertisers with an alternative to tracking with third party cookies or browser fingerprinting? Yes, Google argued that it was designed to preserve the privacy and anonymity of the users, in comparison to the other methods. But this has been copiously disputed, given that Firefox's and Safari's solution was to not provide any alternatives at all. Google kept on insisting that it was essential to meet the advertisers' need to calculate click attribution and conversion rates. They give priority to the advertisers, rather than the users. That's pretty clear in the blog itself.