The article makes several claims about Google Chrome's tracking policies, but not all of them are supported by available sources. For instance, the article correctly describes the change in Chrome 136 regarding the `:visited` link fix, which partitions browsing history to prevent cross-site tracking. However, it inaccurately dates the announcement as April 2, while the actual stable release occurred on April 29. Additionally, the claim that Google reversed plans for a one-click opt-out for third-party cookies lacks corroboration, as there is no direct evidence in the available sources. Furthermore, the assertion that digital fingerprinting has returned and now affects a wider range of devices is not substantiated by the sources, making these claims questionable. Overall, the article presents a mix of verified and unverified information, which diminishes its factual accuracy.

The article primarily presents a critical perspective on Google's tracking policies, focusing on perceived negative impacts on user privacy. While it does mention the positive change regarding the `:visited` link fix, the overall tone is heavily skewed towards highlighting Google's perceived failures and policy reversals. This focus on negative aspects without equally presenting Google's rationale or potential benefits of their decisions indicates a lack of balance. The article could enhance its balance by incorporating perspectives from Google or privacy experts who might provide a more nuanced view of the changes.

The article is generally clear in its language and structure, making it relatively easy to follow. It uses straightforward language to describe technical concepts, such as the `:visited` link fix and digital fingerprinting, which aids reader comprehension. However, the article could improve its clarity by providing more detailed explanations of certain terms and processes, as well as offering a clearer distinction between verified information and speculative claims. This would help readers better understand the nuances of the topic.

The article does not cite any specific sources or experts to substantiate its claims, which undermines its credibility. It lacks references to primary sources such as official Google announcements or statements, relying instead on general assertions. This absence of authoritative sources makes it difficult to assess the reliability of the information presented. For a more robust analysis, the article would benefit from incorporating data or statements from Google or cybersecurity experts to support its claims.

The article lacks transparency in its reporting, as it does not provide clear references or sources for its claims. There is no explanation of how the information was obtained, nor is there any acknowledgment of potential conflicts of interest. This lack of transparency makes it challenging for readers to assess the validity of the claims or understand the basis for the article's conclusions. Providing more context and source attribution would improve the article's transparency and credibility.