Alphabet, the company that owns Google, decided to keep a tool called "cookies" in its Chrome browser. Cookies are small pieces of information that websites use to track what people do online. This decision was surprising because Alphabet had said before that it would get rid of cookies. Many people in the advertising industry are happy with this decision because cookies help them show ads to people based on what they like. But some people are worried that this decision will make it harder for others to compete with Alphabet. Read from source...

- The article starts with a sensationalist headline that implies Google is addicted to cookies, which is an exaggeration and misleading.
- The article uses words like "stirred up", "unexpected", "decision", "reversed", "implications", "surprising", "alleviates", "aligns", "underscores", "adapts", "balancing", "strategic", "bullish", etc. that convey a negative or confusing tone about Google's move.
- The article cherry-picks some analysts' opinions that support the idea that Google's decision is bad for the industry and consumers, while ignoring other perspectives or counterarguments.
- The article makes some factual errors, such as saying that Google's U-turn "everyone saw coming", which is not true, as Google had only announced its intention to phase out third-party cookies in 2023, but not the exact timing or details of how it would do so.
- The article also implies that Google is only keeping cookies to maintain its market dominance and ad revenues, while ignoring the potential benefits of keeping cookies for users, advertisers, and publishers, such as providing more choice, transparency, innovation, and compliance.
- The article ends with a vague and biased statement that "the broader conversation around privacy, data and innovation continues", without acknowledging that Google is actually one of the companies that is leading the way in developing new privacy-friendly technologies and standards, such as the Privacy Sandbox.

Overall, the article seems to have a negative and biased tone towards Google's decision to keep cookies, and uses several rhetorical devices and emotional appeals to persuade the reader that this is a bad move for the industry and consumers. The article also lacks balance, objectivity, and accuracy, and could be improved by providing more context, evidence, and different perspectives on the topic.