top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]berkanoid 398 points399 points ago

I've been following the story closely. But not sure I actually Googled his name since it all kicked off.

[–]jmm1990 93 points94 points ago

Me neither. I've read dozens of articles but never looked him up.

[–]turbine_monkey 59 points60 points ago

Considering there are articles posted everyday on Reddit about him there is no need to Google Edward Snowden.

[–]Abusoru 21 points22 points ago

That's probably part of it. I would imagine that the people who care about Snowden the most will often be found in communities like Reddit where they share articles among themselves.

[–]Mr_A 6 points7 points ago

And those who don't read the articles here are the ones submitting them. Direct from the news sites, not from whatever google throws up on the front page when you search the man's name.

[–]luxapan 4 points5 points ago

Hence no one but Reddit tending to care about Snowden. Yay for insulation.

[–]Abusoru 39 points40 points ago

Same. I think I may have done so once or twice. In that same time frame, I have probably Googled the "viscosity of air" a dozen or so times.

[–]yeahnothx 17 points18 points ago

this is anecdotal. did you google paul walker either? unlikely that most redditors google to get their news.. this probably means either Google is skewing the results (less of a tinfoil hat theory than you'd think) or the snowden story hasn't permeated the culture of the less tech savvy

[–]iwantmyvices 8 points9 points ago

Or they simply went to a news source, like CNN or Fox, directly and skipped Google. I mean Snowden was pretty big news, so they were bound to be on the front page of major news networks.

[–]Abusoru 5 points6 points ago

I think that it is partially because not enough people care about Snowden. As well, at this point, whenever a new leak comes out, it isn't breaking news; it's just another story in the news cycle. It's the reason why you see people who died (Mandela, Walker, and Monteith) and the Boston Marathon in the top 10 searches. Those events happened much more suddenly and people are going to use Google to find the latest details.

I'll bring up another, more personal experience. Down at Salisbury University in Maryland this year, a girl that I knew from high school and a friend were shot by her ex-boyfriend, who also went to my high school. The friend was killed, the ex committed suicide, and the girl was in critical condition. I was constantly Googling for more details because I wanted to keep up to date with what was going on, as some websites would get more details before others. I had to sort through multiple news sources because the sources either had old information, or, in Daily Mail's case (why the hell they were reporting on an event at a small American college, I don't know), were making up details that weren't being reported anywhere else.

I will admit that I did do a Google search after Paul Walker's death, because in my case, I wasn't familiar with him and all my friends were talking about him on Facebook. On the other hand, I would imagine that people who were more familiar with him were also Googling him because they wanted to get the latest news about what had happened.

[–]brezzz 182 points183 points ago

And they didn't find Barack Obama using that methodology either. But that does not mean that the public was not interested in him or the ACA, another thing I could not find on their page or with a cursory glance at the google page itself. That does not mean it was thought to be unimportant news that was ignored. The news media could not stop talking about it, and it was the conversation of the water cooler too. The same with Snowden and the NSA. Its omission means nothing, really. Google searches are vapid by nature, not necessarily a symptom of public opinion. People search for what they want to see and don't know how to find it. If they are bombarded with it, then there is no need to search.

[–]talal12 16 points17 points ago

That's what I'm thinking - there is just no significant correlation after a given amount of time between someone's name being searched on Google and the general public's interest in the topic.

[–]Dullahan3470 12 points13 points ago

It's more fun to draft a conspiracy theory of Google obscuring the facts!

[–]suspiciousname 1 point2 points ago

Interesting how a lot of the searches were actually in Russian. I guess the Russians were curious about who was seeking asylum in their country.

[–]goldenpoop 249 points250 points ago

Why would we need to search... he's on every webpage we visit!

[–]toodeeptoquit 258 points259 points ago

I did a quick poll around the house.

My gf thinks he was 'spy friends' with that Army guy (she means Bradley Manning.)

3 of her friends have no idea who Edward Snowden

1 said he's a former 'CIA with a stripper girlfriend.' We're all college graduates in a major city.

[–]ZachofFables 117 points118 points ago

At least none of them said "Benedict Cumberbatch."

[–]Sunwalker 6 points7 points ago

Ahh OSU graduates I see....

[–]PowderPuffGirls 72 points73 points ago

:(

[–]mongaj 2 points3 points ago

that's so supportive dae snowden upents to the left

[–]zjpeters 65 points66 points ago

So what you're saying is you just hang out with people who don't keep up with current events. That doesn't really show anything.

[–]toodeeptoquit 48 points49 points ago

Thanks for the clarification, in case someone took a house poll of 20 somethings to be scientific.

[–]eggstacy 50 points51 points ago

I went to a Chinese grocery store and none of the cashiers knew who Miley Cyrus was. Shes so 2000 and late.

[–]fight_for_anything 2 points3 points ago

they got that BOOM BOOM wow. they got that CHICKEN KUNG POW.

[–]HeirToPendragon 8 points9 points ago

I wouldn't know who he was if I wasn't subscribed to this sub. I think, in general, most people don't care that much about current events. There is just to much going on in the world at any time to focus on everything. And honestly, to most people, including myself, the whole Snowden ordeal really isn't that important to our daily lives. So it's not much of a shocker that most don't know anything.

[–]CGord 1 point2 points ago

It seems to show who he hangs out with, by your conclusion.

[–]cipher64 4 points5 points ago

You said around the house, so let's see it's you, your girl friend and three of hey friends. Let me just imagine that all of you are up to no good.

[–]Big_Timber 11 points12 points ago

Exactly. I've read dozens of articles about him, yet I've never searched him. So what?

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

    [–]cpbills 26 points27 points ago

    Who searches for something found frequently enough in current news? I can't think of a reason why I might use 'Edward Snowden' as search terms.

    [–]Tashre 14 points15 points ago

    • Edward Snowden cupcake designs

    • Edward Snowden book deal

    • Edward Snowden sex change

    • Edward Snowden movie deal

    • Edward Snowden leaks

    • Edward Snowden leaking

    • Edward Snowden rule 34

    • Edward Elric rule 34

    • HOw to dellete faceb ook shares

    • Painless ways to commit suicide

    [–][deleted] 11 points12 points ago

    Well... what would they use then? Bing? Yahoo?

    [–]thelunatic 42 points43 points ago

    DuckDuckGo

    [–]sage_joch 16 points17 points ago

    Notice their traffic once the NSA stories started being published. That's about the time I switched, and it's been great overall.

    [–]7777773 2 points3 points ago

    DDG has room to grow, but among search engines that aren't abusing your rights they are #1.

    [–]kpopster 1 point2 points ago

    https://startpage.com/ gives far better results -- it's been along for a long time and because it's hosted in the Netherlands it doesn't have to comply with US law.

    [–]FabianN 6 points7 points ago

    Which is silly because that doesn't actually change anything in terms of the NSA tracking you.

    [–]sometimesijustdont 1 point2 points ago

    Yep.

    [–]Taniwha_NZ 1686 points1687 points ago

    He's listed at #97 for fuck's sake. This might be too high or too low for our personal liking, but he's in there.

    Why isn't he higher? Because the vast majority of people who use google don't pay much attention to politics and civil rights issues. These lists are always full of celebrities and trivial bullshit that reflects the focus of mainstream media.

    It really means nothing.

    edit: Come on you motherfuckers - only a couple hundred more votes and I'm over 20k comment karma. It means absolutely nothing, I know, but it's been a long time coming.

    edit: OK, we did it YAY!!!!! But you lads & ladettes can settle down now. I'm in danger of sprinting past 21k now, I don't want to get ahead of myself.

    [–]VeryAppropriateName 40 points41 points ago

    Tila Tequila.... seriously??????

    [–]ScenesfromaCat 33 points34 points ago

    Of all the women you can see naked on the internet... people pick that one. Wow society.

    [–]JohnnyHammerstix 13 points14 points ago

    I used to think she was super hot and loved her nude photos back in like 2000. Then she got a twitter/facebook and I thought to myself "Wow... this chick seems really fucking annoying". Just one episode of that TV show she had confirmed it and I lost all interest.

    [–]JManRomania 10 points11 points ago

    Tila Tequila was around in 2000? Holy fuck I feel ancient.

    [–]antibios 9 points10 points ago

    She looks like ET in drag

    [–]tickhunter 1 point2 points ago

    How do you know ET wasn't a woman? DUH DUH DUUH!!

    [–]Heard_That 3 points4 points ago

    She is back in the public eye for apparently spouting shitloads of anti Semitic rantings. Also sex tape.

    [–]Switchsquatch 3 points4 points ago

    She just said some really conspiracy theorist stuff that has people talking about her again.

    [–]bobandy_cheeseburger 2 points3 points ago

    Apparently there is a new Tila Tequila sex tape on the way. article

    [–]antibios 3 points4 points ago

    But she does legitimate porn. That'd be like hearing there is a cytheria sex tape out there. Its obviously staged anyway so any candidness is out the window.

    [–]hitechl0wlife 5 points6 points ago

    I'm sorry. I'm one of the people putting her on that list. I will fap vigorously and repeatedly to this.

    [–]im_always_fapping 8 points9 points ago

    Just because she is a (attention) whore doesn't make her relevant.

    [–]mattattaxx 16 points17 points ago

    Apparently it does, if she's a big google search term right now.

    [–]NewTooRedit 2 points3 points ago

    Just because she isn't relevant doesn't mean I can punish my dick to her sex tapes.

    [–]ChaseAndStatus 1 point2 points ago

    With A Man

    STOP THE PRESS

    Also she has a porn name already...

    [–]eforemergency 63 points64 points ago

    Man, people really want to see Dylan Sprouse nude

    [–]masco22 46 points47 points ago

    Dylan Prouse nude

    fuck, i thought that was a girl

    [–]eforemergency 23 points24 points ago

    Sorry. We get to enjoy celebrity nudes sometimes too. Though it wasn't really anything to write home about...

    [–]rurikloderr 1 point2 points ago

    In what way was it not "anything to write home about?" I'm legitimately curious.

    [–]SaddestClown 33 points34 points ago

    People don't write home anymore.

    [–]RoBoDaN91 1 point2 points ago

    Is that part of the reason why you're so sad?

    [–]SaddestClown 3 points4 points ago

    It is now.

    [–]eforemergency 10 points11 points ago

    He had his hand over his dick so all you could see was a tiny bit of shaft. Very nice chest though!

    [–]zman0900 20 points21 points ago

    If girls can show clevage in public, guys should be able to show a little top-shaft, right?

    [–]eforemergency 12 points13 points ago

    Haha I can get on board with that. Equal opportunity nudity, people.

    [–]rurikloderr 2 points3 points ago

    Except it's not.. Penis != Breasts. Women can get away with showing their chests off in order to see what's in between a man's legs?.. How's that shit fair? Why are women allowed a full show without recipricating?

    I propose a better solution. Women, you're now allowed to bare your chest anytime you want. You get the privilege we've been enjoying for some time now. However.. bare chests, of either gender, are no longer considered a form of nudity. Nudity now involves, regardless of gender, showing of the genitalia.

    [–]rurikloderr 3 points4 points ago

    I think this is kind of bullshit actually.. Why is it that women, in my experience, think naked breasts are comparable to penis in the whole nudity department?

    As far as I'm concerned, equality in nudity should be what we're striving for here. We can already bare our chests, so you feel free to go right ahead and start doing that. You want some penis though.. well, you know where this is going.

    [–]zman0900 1 point2 points ago

    Public titties are actually legal where I live (Columbus, OH). Sadly that is rarely taken advantage of.

    [–]vanderbugger 2 points3 points ago

    I certainly know I do.

    [–]GeneralTapioca 4 points5 points ago

    Joan Fontaine is getting some buzz.

    [–]tumbler_fluff 6 points7 points ago

    And, for whatever it's worth: Wikipedia's Top 5,000 hits in the last 7 days.

    He's currently #565 with 80,283 hits in the last week.

    [–]alcabazar 4 points5 points ago

    Beating Julia Roberts and the state of Hawaii should be enough consolation prize.

    [–]WonderSql 17 points18 points ago

    And it is depressing and reminds me:

    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

    -- Eleanor Roosevelt

    [–]snng 37 points38 points ago

    Does the fact that you are using the quote to discuss the people that discuss people depresses you more?

    [–]ImANewRedditor 16 points17 points ago

    Not to mention Snowden is a person.

    [–]f73hf64jk9v7shhjf727 5 points6 points ago

    Yes, but maybe he's like Batman and represents an idea?

    [–]Baron_Von_Awesome 12 points13 points ago

    I bet she only said that because she was tired of FDR always talking about Hitler at the dinner table

    [–]Cheapthrillsmills 1 point2 points ago

    How does this work?

    [–]dinofan01 278 points279 points ago

    Naw man. Stop thinking rationally and let's just say Google must be skewing the numbers.

    [–]Rabbyte808 19 points20 points ago

    Well, we know Google is skewing the numbers since "porn" isn't #1.

    [–]Greggor88 10 points11 points ago

    I guess I can only speak for myself, but I don't search for porn on Google...

    [–]DELTATKG 2 points3 points ago

    For those who don't know: use Bing.

    [–]Andewz111 124 points125 points ago

    And the NSA. The NSA and Google are in cahoots to suppress the truth of just how popular he is!

    [–]Piles_Hussein 50 points51 points ago

    Yeah how ridiculous anyone who thought that would have be a tin foil hatted nutcase, next they'll be saying the NSA are spying on people by paying operatives to play world of warcraft.

    [–]CT_Legacy 5 points6 points ago

    Either you believe with what they want you to believe or you are a "conspiracy lunatic" who also happens to tell the truth...

    [–]NewTooRedit 4 points5 points ago

    Kennedy and Tupac are really pulling the strings

    [–]synth22 6 points7 points ago

    While I get the joke in what you say, Edward Snowden was actually suppose to be doing a televised interview by Barbara Walters as her number 1 most interesting person of 2013, but the guvment was like nah.

    [–]ZachofFables 3 points4 points ago

    It's literally the only possible explanation.

    [–]redpoemage 18 points19 points ago

    It could also partially be that people are searching "NSA" or "NSA leak" and other stuff like that instead. It's about more than just the leaker, it's the leak that matters most.

    [–]keeperofthegroove 21 points22 points ago

    Um, but Nelson Mandela, Syria, the government shutdown, and the Boston bombings were not about politics or civil rights? The hard truth is that Ed Snowden is kind of irrelevant outside of Reddit.

    [–]Jbbbbb 10 points11 points ago

    I wouldnt say irrelevant but I know whatchya mean.

    [–]SoleusRex 8 points9 points ago

    Snowden is a young, white, male tech worker--he's an idealized version of the typical Redditor. I certainly don't mean to diminish what Snowden has done, or the importance of the ongoing NSA scandal, but I do think there's a strong element of narcissism in Reddit's obsession with Snowden.

    Taniwha_NZ claims that Snowden isn't highly ranked because people don't care for politics and civil rights issues, and are overly concerned with "celebrities" and other trivia. But as you point out, that could pretty well be said of most Redditors too.

    [–]goodstuff10 20 points21 points ago

    Thank you! This is the second pointless Snowden article today that is near the top of worldnews.

    [–]DarthWarder 8 points9 points ago

    Plus people who are actually interested in news about him already see them on literally every news website/reddit, because there is a new article about him every time he says something.

    [–]ChronicYonik 3 points4 points ago

    I've heard of him, and read articles about him, but I've never actually searched him on google.

    [–]JohnKog 3 points4 points ago

    Yeah the Washington post's article is dumb. He's on Google's main zeitgeist explorer page:

    http://www.google.com/trends/topcharts?zg=full (look at the top middle)

    [–]jordanlund 2 points3 points ago

    Also, he's not really a name you'd have to search for, is he? I mean, all the Snowden related articles are front and center on Google News.

    [–]Bestpaperplaneever 2 points3 points ago

    97 is pretty fucking high in my opinion. I imagined that the first 1000 or so search terms would be exclusively porn-related.

    [–]alpain 3 points4 points ago

    dont use google/cant get away from him on EVERY SINGLE NEWS SITE so there is no need to search.

    [–]StarlightN 1 point2 points ago

    Here, have some shitty points you Maori dragon mother fucker.

    [–]Achilles8725 82 points83 points ago

    Better get the team on it! http://i.imgur.com/IVXXHdF.png

    [–]windupbirdistheword 3 points4 points ago

    Soldier, where is your fedora!?

    [–]routari 0 points1 point ago

    I bet they're all atheists too, because that's the only possible reason for being atheist. It's rejecting Jesus as part of a rebellion against good honest normal-ass Americans, just trying to earn a living. Sixpack.

    [–]leganeus 27 points28 points ago

    cause redditors don't rule the internet

    [–]jjijjijj 29 points30 points ago

    Which is good

    [–]OCDWarrior 27 points28 points ago

    Because only a few thousand people on Reddit give a fuck about him? You think the world cares about what is "popular" on Reddit? You haven't yet figured out your opinion is the minority. The majority of Americans thinks this guy is better off in front of a firing squad or in an electric chair.

    [–]landtank 6 points7 points ago

    Indeed. How it should be.

    [–]Talran 3 points4 points ago

    The majority of Americans thinks this guy is better off in front of a firing squad or in an electric chair.

    Majority American chiming in, not death, just a fair trial. 20 years minimum wouldn't hurt him.

    [–]StannisB 10 points11 points ago

    Finally, someone arrived at the truth. Pay attention kids, this is the hard truth you should know.

    [–]aidenr 49 points50 points ago

    You don't have to search to find news about Snowden. You have to filter to get rid of it.

    [–]CBLittleBuddy 20 points21 points ago

    Wow, such fascinating world news.

    [–]scribbling_des 12 points13 points ago

    I don't know how accurate this comment on the blog is, but it makes sense to me:

    "The utter idiocy of Washington Post bloggers continues to amaze. Grab a few lists or charts from somewhere, and make a blog post out of it with ZERO analysis of what exactly they prove. In this case, Brian Fung does not even understand what the lists are about. The title of the post says "Google’s list of top 2013 searches", whereas every single one of the lists he has posted is about top TRENDING searches. Huge difference. Not every subject that many people care about produces a sharp spike on Google Trends. Surely, more people have searched for "Obamacare" than any of the topics mentioned, and more people care about that topic than about Cory Monteith or the Royal Baby. Yet, Brian Fung will have you believe that any topic not on the list is not "a major subject of debate". How stupid can you be and still write for a newspaper?

    Hint: Just because something has numbers in it, does not mean that they represent something meaningful. You still have to use your brain to figure out what, if anything, the numbers show."

    [–]Sphik 31 points32 points ago

    Who fucking gives a shit?

    [–]FLYBOY611 18 points19 points ago

    This feels like The Washington Post equivalent of when someone posts "why isn't this getting more press?" on Reddit. I'd also like to take a moment to remind people that Snowden specifically didn't want the NSA story to be about him.

    [–]DefaultGen 7 points8 points ago

    I thought I'd seen the biggest load of bullshit on /r/worldnews before but this one is a serious contender.

    [–]Rodman930 13 points14 points ago

    r/circlejerk

    [–]sixbluntsdeep 6 points7 points ago

    [–]mpyne 4 points5 points ago

    I don't see it! Is Reddit conspiring with the U.S. government to filter out his subreddits too! Have they no shame?

    [–]dripitydrip 3 points4 points ago

    one comment on that site makes my point better than I could:

    "Hey look. Barack Obama doesn't appear in any of these lists either. Even the top 10 people searches. I guess we must therefore conclude that he is not a significant or influential person, even if Obama "himself clearly thinks he's still a major subject of debate." In fact, it appears that Miley Cyrus is a more significant and influential person than President Obama."

    [–]cynoclast 2 points3 points ago

    All this proves is that TV is still the most dominant source information.

    [–]a_telescreen 2 points3 points ago

    google's search data is heavily and seriously scrubbed. if you try and search for term trend over time (especially murky or taboo/c os pira tor ial nature) none of them have a remotely realistic history

    [–]Hiyasc 5 points6 points ago

    The idea wasn't for people to know about Snowden, it was for people to know about the NSA.

    [–]LurkerTriumphant 10 points11 points ago

    I was too busy googling apartments, visa information, birthday gifts for my wife. Some people have their personal lives to concern themselves with. And while Snowden may be making quite a debt in the intelligence community, there's other news out there, a lot of it with more consequence.

    [–]LordBlackmore 11 points12 points ago

    This is Reddit, where a lot of people seem to forget that we all have lives and Edward Snowden, despite exposing a lot of bullshit, isn't everyone's top priority.

    [–]super_kate 3 points4 points ago

    Reddit is not anywhere near the general population. It's a nerdcore time waster with the occasional - occasional - insightful comment, and you don't realize it because so much of your own time - your own life - is spent gaining 'karma' here.

    You cling to Snowden because he legitimizes your fantasies. But most people are sad simply because of Paul Walker.

    [–]dtldvn 1 point2 points ago

    Most people go to reddit for Snowden news, not Google.

    [–]sahuxley 1 point2 points ago

    YAY! We have a new picture of him now.

    [–]Roflkopt3r 1 point2 points ago

    There is the possibilities that searches related to him and his leaks are simply too spread out over different search terms such as Edward Snowden, NSA Leaks, NSA affair, US spying, Guardian Leaks, and such.

    [–]micmea1 1 point2 points ago

    Okay. Why is this important? Why should we expect him to be? Sure, he has been big in the news, I hear another story from him almost daily. He's an important person, I have no doubts about that...but do we really need to be crying over this?

    [–]tonberry2 1 point2 points ago

    It is a censored list no doubt. The real top ten is most likely all porn.

    [–]piss4njoymtNOTmplymt 1 point2 points ago

    just because the information the man leaked is interesting, doesn't mean the man himself is interesting.

    [–]ACapellaNerd 1 point2 points ago

    His picture is pretty clearly in the Google Zeitgeist this year. http://www.google.com/zeitgeist/

    [–]QueefDiatribe 1 point2 points ago

    He was obviously replaced by the Harlem Shake.

    [–]cryptogram 1 point2 points ago

    This article is a great example of why the Washington Post was sold for only $250M and even that was considered a sucker price by some.

    [–]MrOtsKrad 1 point2 points ago

    Let me introduce you to a book called How to lie with Statistics. Garbage article.

    [–]Col_Volkov 1 point2 points ago

    This is a pathetically illogical analysis. It does not deserve to even be talked about, much less taken seriously. Its conclusions are in no way supported by its arguments.

    [–]Coho787 1 point2 points ago

    In summary: We don't google Snowden b/c we already read his name 50+ times a week. Writing an article about how he's not a big name...4th time I've seen an article on Edward Snowden just today.

    [–]jeddywoo 1 point2 points ago

    Bad article, misleading.

    [–]stultifying 1 point2 points ago

    Each year Google ranks the year's top "trending" searches, meaning that the queries are ranked based on their rise in search volume for 2013 versus the previous year.

    Forbes

    The article would have you believe otherwise. They want the message sent that there's such a huge decrease in interest in Snowden that he doesn't even show up on Google's "popularity" chart.

    Edit: spelling

    [–]Sleekery 11 points12 points ago

    waits for the people to accuse Google of a conspiracy to shut him out

    [–]needconfirmation 4 points5 points ago

    because people don't give a shit.

    contrary to what you hear around here most people don't actually care.

    [–]NoFunHere 4 points5 points ago

    Now if we could just get him to quit showing up on the front page of reddit...

    [–]Pressingissues 2 points3 points ago

    That's cuz no one can find him. Duh

    [–]analcleaver 2 points3 points ago

    "Xvideos" #1

    [–]AngMoBetterBlues 2 points3 points ago

    This is the epitome of manufacturing news and lazy journalism.

    [–]tedzeppelin93 2 points3 points ago

    How the Hell is this news?

    [–]kikimaru024 2 points3 points ago

    The real question is if/where he shows up.

    [–]jasongadgetguy 5 points6 points ago

    He number #97 I think global search.

    [–]Myhouseisamess 2 points3 points ago

    I wonder if it has anything to do with every media outlet known to man jumping on Snowden's nuts

    I mean when you log onto the internet do you really have to "search' to find articles

    Go to any news site and you get SNOWDEN WIPED HIS ASS TODAY and let us know via Twitter

    [–]haerl 2 points3 points ago

    Oh look, top 2013 searches on Google lists that have 0 sexual things in it. Yeah, I totally believe that these are the top searches being made. Absolutely. Because more people would like some info on the 'royal baby' than getting rid of an itch. These are totally unfiltered, and totally the "top searches". Is this really the Washington Post, or is someone trying to blemish their reputation?

    [–]BayBeBluu 2 points3 points ago

    Google is lying to us

    [–][deleted] ago

    [deleted]

      [–]SuperBicycleTony 2 points3 points ago

      I care more what intelligent people of good conscience think.

      Although yours is a good tact to consider if your purpose is to normalize insanity.

      I hope you're getting paid for this.

      [–]AppleDane 4 points5 points ago

      I don't know half the people in the persons list. I do know Edward Snowden.

      Who are all these people? Big in the US?

      [–]BetaState 22 points23 points ago

      You should Google them.

      [–]Occamslaser 1 point2 points ago

      For the most part singers musicians.

      [–]stancosmos 2 points3 points ago

      Who the fuck cares? Honestly. I'm sure snowden isn't too crushed by this.

      [–]Mike3400 1 point2 points ago

      Which is weird as I heard the Americans were looking for him pretty hard.

      [–]irateuncle 1 point2 points ago

      I just looked up their top 100 for 2013 and it does in fact seem that Edward Snowden is 97. Maybe OP didn't look through the list thoroughly enough, or only checked the top 10 where OP expected him to be.

      [–]not_chris_hansen_ 1 point2 points ago

      number 1 search on reddit with everyone being unable to stop sucking his dick

      [–]AnnArchist -1 points0 points ago

      https://www.google.com/#q=edward+snowden

      Reddit can't fix that.... can it?

      [–]silasbrock 1 point2 points ago

      Jesus, Snowden, Snowden, Snowden. Can we just stick a giant Reddit tongue up this little fuck's ass and call it a day?

      [–]Screen-Name 0 points1 point ago

      There's no way that any of these are real. Searches for porn would be permanently at the top

      [–]MartyrXLR 0 points1 point ago

      I never googled him.

      [–]mgunk 0 points1 point ago

      Probably because it just links articles that are linked here every day. Let us not forget that the further you get you probably get into obscure conspiracy websites and other madness.

      [–]Kipawa 0 points1 point ago

      I'm not typing in "Edward Snowden" but I am typing in "NSA controversy", or just "NSA". Chances are there is going to be a news article on it.

      [–]akaisdhh 0 points1 point ago

      I've probably only searched his name once or twice, but because of his revelations, the searches weren't done using Google.

      [–]phdoofus 0 points1 point ago

      Now, if there was an Edward Snowden porn film, then we'd be talking.

      [–]superf1y 0 points1 point ago

      He probably never needed googled because it never left the headlines.

      [–]Ericcccccc 0 points1 point ago

      What we learned here today.

      The internet isnt plotting with the us government to remove snowden from existence. Stop being so ignorant about everything with the u.s

      A post can get 2000 karma if it mentions Edward Snowden and something undermining the u.s government, without any of the speculations being true.

      [–]aevans395 0 points1 point ago

      Well I mean, I never googled him...

      [–]Dlgredael 0 points1 point ago

      The utter idiocy of Washington Post bloggers continues to amaze. Grab a few lists or charts from somewhere, and make a blog post out of it with ZERO analysis of what exactly they prove. In this case, Brian Fung does not even understand what the lists are about. The title of the post says "Google’s list of top 2013 searches", whereas every single one of the lists he has posted is about top TRENDING searches. Huge difference. Not every subject that many people care about produces a sharp spike on Google Trends. Surely, more people have searched for "Obamacare" than any of the topics mentioned, and more people care about that topic than about Cory Monteith or the Royal Baby. Yet, Brian Fung will have you believe that any topic not on the list is not "a major subject of debate". How stupid can you be and still write for a newspaper?

      Hint: Just because something has numbers in it, does not mean that they represent something meaningful. You still have to use your brain to figure out what, if anything, the numbers show.

      -- qwe1234's comment response, which I agree with and don't feel like plagarewriting.

      [–]__tmk__ 0 points1 point ago

      How to skew, 101: "Is it true you've stopped beating your wife?"

      Context is all, folks. "trending" vs "top" vs ... well.

      [–]JoeyBigtimes 0 points1 point ago

      That is really horrible reporting. Really horrible.

      [–]SomeoneWhoIsntYou 0 points1 point ago

      I wanna know how many old people googled Google.

      [–]BlackPresident 0 points1 point ago

      Guys, who forgot to google edward snowden?

      [–]typongtive 0 points1 point ago

      Why should he? he was already in our newsfeeds, no need to search.

      [–]wwlink1 0 points1 point ago

      googles top list of 2013, knee deep in grannies?

      [–]Aaronmcom 0 points1 point ago

      Because your average person either does not give a shit, or has already seen everything they need to see.

      [–]-----BroAway----- 0 points1 point ago

      Is it possible all the people searching for Snowden have been using Bing?

      [–]bottomlines 0 points1 point ago

      Good. He isn't meant to be a celebrity. If you care at all about the NSA scandal, don't make this about Snowden as a person. Make it about the issue.

      [–]GardenGnomeOfEden 0 points1 point ago

      I've never had any need to Google Snowden, because I get nonstop updates from NPR.

      [–]MrBleedingFingers 0 points1 point ago

      well this list is obviously edited, we all know that the #1 search term would be (someting)porn

      [–]abitterthrowaway 0 points1 point ago

      Today you all learned that reddit is not a reflection of reality.

      [–]Krudoru 0 points1 point ago

      Isn't this TRENDING searches? Which is when there's a big spike in searches for something? God some bloggers are absolutely clueless.

      [–]nickownsyou 0 points1 point ago

      because he's been so covered in the media lol...

      [–]JackBond1234 0 points1 point ago

      My whole computer ethics class had to do a report on him. I guarantee you everyone in that class Googled him at least once.

      [–]EvilHom3r -1 points0 points ago

      That's because everyone is afraid they'll end up on some kind of NSA watch list if they search for him.

      [–]windfall99 0 points1 point ago

      Maybe the data is being manipulated.

      [–]masonryf 0 points1 point ago

      The google searches sited in the article are of trending search terms, not yearly. Read people. This subreddit is awful.

      [–]artsip 0 points1 point ago

      Everyone who cares has moved on to duck duck go or similar.