There are jobs that require you to look at porn. When I worked on Google Image Search I had to sign an addendum that I understood my job may require exposure to these images, exposure did not constitute sexual harassment, and I should view images only as needed for my work.

Some QC folk were in fairly private cubicles because they had to do testing on porn regularly. Hell, some could recite the ML grouping ID of major clusters of porn.

I can always count on someone who works at Google to announce the fact that they work at Google.

Really? On HN I only see work history cited to establish themselves as a primary source (avoiding a response of “citation?”) or to ethically disclose bias.

even irl, it’s part of the introduction “hi I’m so and so I work at google doing a <<super normal thing that I think is important or interesting but really isn’t to anyone else>>”

Are there that many unique porn sites? Seems like you'd have to be doing things like counting every pornographic tumblr as a unique "site" to come up with a number that high. For purposes of figuring out who is tracking you, should an entire platform count as 1?

From the paper's methodology:

"In March 2018, we used a U.S.-based computer to analyze 22,484 pornography websites to identify the third-parties which may be able to infer users’ sexual interests, and whether privacy policies provide a sufficient vehicle for obtaining meaningful consent to tracking. To create our population of pornography websites, we downloaded the homepages of the one million most popular web- sites identified by the Alexa service. Upon downloading the home- page, we extracted the page meta description information (a short summary of the page’s content provided by the site developer) and page title. Our population of pornography websites is comprised of sites with ‘porn’ in the URL, meta description, or title of the page."