Thank you for clarifying! And I’m sorry, I don’t think you’re right. You may have known about him, but prior to his death practically nobody else knew or cared about him.
Even his arrest was global news, random google chart aside.
Reps were calling for Acosta to testify about the plea deal before his arrest, following the herald’s exposé.
Before that it was brought up for ties to Clinton, quite regularly, especially during the campaigning up to the 2016 election…
Skyrocketing interest following his death (more to find out about his death than anything else) or following a very public and continual series of comments about the Epstein files doesn’t really indicate anything other than google searches following significant events, not whether people were aware of him. That is really all that “interest over time” chart says, IMO - more people were searching for additional news, nothing more, on very recent, very public, very notable news.
Do you have any evidence of your claims? Because your casual dismissal of the Trends data is based on your anecdotal impressions and really isn’t valid. It even shows the very clear spike in interest following his arrest which you brought up.
Please back up your position with anything concrete or drop this, I’m not interested in playing “facts vs. feelings” with you.
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?
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.
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.
Thank you for clarifying! And I’m sorry, I don’t think you’re right. You may have known about him, but prior to his death practically nobody else knew or cared about him.
Even his arrest was global news, random google chart aside.
Reps were calling for Acosta to testify about the plea deal before his arrest, following the herald’s exposé.
Before that it was brought up for ties to Clinton, quite regularly, especially during the campaigning up to the 2016 election…
Skyrocketing interest following his death (more to find out about his death than anything else) or following a very public and continual series of comments about the Epstein files doesn’t really indicate anything other than google searches following significant events, not whether people were aware of him. That is really all that “interest over time” chart says, IMO - more people were searching for additional news, nothing more, on very recent, very public, very notable news.
Do you have any evidence of your claims? Because your casual dismissal of the Trends data is based on your anecdotal impressions and really isn’t valid. It even shows the very clear spike in interest following his arrest which you brought up.
Please back up your position with anything concrete or drop this, I’m not interested in playing “facts vs. feelings” with you.
edit: clarity.
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.