this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2026
326 points (99.1% liked)
Political Memes
12295 readers
2407 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You provided an opinion, I provided mine.
There is nothing we can point to as evidence. I have pointed out why that chart isn't evidence, its simply searches, and greatly impacted by active and ongoing events. Change it to the past 12 months, the peak in February is massive, and there was no apparent interest in August of 2025.
Except there was - its just relative. February is when files began being released.
Google trends is not evidence or proof of anything in the slightest.
I'm sorry this bothers you so much to have someone disagree, but I do, and there isnt much more to say about it.
Enjoy your day/evening.
Edit: Just as an example for you - Lolita express.
Was "Lolita express" referenced in any context other than Epstein in common usage?
No.
But according to this (non-evidence), it was of massive interest in 2016. Why would that be?
Google trends <> evidence.
Yeah, didn't think you had anything. Charcterizing hard data as opinion, and dismissing something becoming common knowledge because it was receiving too much coverage, are both pretty absurd things to retreat to. And this is my opinion: it's deeply weird you're so hung up on not being wrong about something this dumb. Seriously.
edit: ...presumably it was searched for because of Epstien? That doesn't contradict anything I've said thus far, I'm once again confused as to what you're trying to say here.
I'm not trying to "win" anything, I think that may be the root of the issue here.
I also think you grossly misunderstand what google trends shows, which I tried to explain, but you seemed to think meant I was trying to "win" something.
I'll be done with you here. I would recommend you learn how google trends works though, because it doesn't mean what you think it does.
I'm still lost as to what you were trying to say with lolita express as a search term, but if you're gonna try and pull the "nah, you don't understand your source" reddit switcheroo thing I'm happy to write this off as a bad attempt at trolling and move on.
(edit: I'm genuinely confused as to what your point is. The data tracks pretty cleanly)
It seems pretty clear that the spike is due to the 2016 Trump/Epstein lawsuit.
Lolita express was Epstein's private plane.
There is no "switcharoo", trends does not show what you think it does, and does not work how you seem to think it works.
I'm aware of the plane, but I don't know why you've brought it up. You're trying to illustrate a point and fair enough, but the point you're making isn't clear - it just looks like Trends behaving exactly like it should. You're pointing at evidence and saying it's wrong, but... why do you think it's wrong?
There's no basis for you to make that claim - that's why this feels an awful lot like you're just trying to win the argument, not actually explain your point.
Trends is just search history over time. It is entirely impacted by major events, and in no way demonstrates common awareness. Massive peaks - such as those resulting from ongoing events like a vote to make the release of Epstein files as law, and the ongoing nonsense and slow fed drip of heavily redacted files - skew the charts substantially.
Give me a moment to grab my laptop, and I'll edit in to demonstrate.
This is 2010 to 2016. The peak is shown in 2016, and another big jump in interest in 2015. Lets compare that same bit out to 2018.
Still has big peaks, specifically in 2015 and 2016.
Now lets go past the day he died - August 10th, 2019.
What happened to those peaks? Well, he died in custody, under very strange circumstances. Interest was higher, but there was awareness much earlier. What happened was a rapid spike in searches because of what happened, not because he was unknown.
Point being, Google Trends shows search activity, not commonality in awareness. Major events skew the chart. It does not, in any way, demonstrate the commonality of awareness of the existence of a person.
AH - Okay. I see where I have misunderstood what you were saying.
"Awareness" is a separate issue - there's no way to demonstrate awareness without some really comprehensive periodic survey results (that don't exist). The claim I made, household name, is based on people actively thinking about or discussing him. There's no way to know what people have forgotten, and random criminal names from years before may or may not stick around, so the only indicator we have is of people interacting with information about him.
Exactly. Thats all I'm saying. Epstein (and especially the Lolita Express) were not unknowns until after Epstein died. Did he become a more common discussion after? Absolutely, but it isn't as though people in general were unaware of his existence.
Thats all I'm saying.