Glad I actually read the actual article. I saw the headline and thought to myself "hmmm, that's weird. I thought they wanted to basically destroy privacy, why would they be donating to things that try to preserve it?"
Now it makes perfect sense.
Now it makes perfect sense.
It seems that's partly the case here: they want more legislation, but also want to make sure it won't hurt them.
It's not ideal for them, but I believe it benefits their monopoly position. Implementing the technical and compliance measures required by the GDPR is trivial at the scale of Google, but a significant barrier to entry for smaller competitors.
I don't believe they care about people's privacy either, but it's a noble cause to be exploited. I think what they really want is regulatory hurdles that stifle competition, but have no real impact on their business.
I expect they want to shape emerging legislation to include the likes of: appoint a dedicated data protection officer; have a process by which customers can request their data; produce quarterly reports. Things which place a proportionately larger burden on smaller businesses (which perhaps can even be sold to them as services), but don't limit the collection or processing of data.
Implying you usually just base your opinion on headlines? That seems like a risky proposition...