• Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    22 days ago

    I’m a bit confused and concerned about why people would think that their partner would be able to find out who they voted for. Isn’t it well known that elections are private?

    • Bienenvolk@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      22 days ago

      I imagine they are THAT scared of their husbands that they want to double check a fact they already know. So yes, deeply concerning…

          • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            22 days ago

            Learn how trending on Google works. Then realize that right under the voting thing on the list of suggested autocompletes is a question about being baptized by your husband.

            Do you think tons and tons of women are Googling that, too? How many women do you think are out there who got baptized by their husbands?

            How gullible can people be?

            • davidagain@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              22 days ago

              My point is that you’re username suggests objectivity, calm rationality and balance, but you’re incredibly partisan, feeling-driven and pretty rude to people who criticise guess what? No, not science, not facts, not rationality, but Donald Trump, the science-denying idiot disgraced former president who is well known for using the word “truth” to mean things he likes to hear and “fake” for things he doesn’t like to hear, the liar of liars, the king of untruth, and the toddler of emotional maturity.

              So no, the fact that it makes you cross that lots of women are checking that their husbands can’t find out how they voted, or even that Google thought they might, and that you’re calling people names for thinking it might be happening, doesn’t particularly convince me that this is not happening.

              • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                21 days ago

                you’re incredibly partisan

                Stating a fact that favors one group over another isn’t what it means to be partisan.

                feeling-driven

                I have never taken a stance here that was rooted in “feelings”. I make a very active effort to draw my conclusions based on the evidence I have access to, and failing that, clear, consistent logic.

                Show me where I’ve ever done otherwise, if you can.

                pretty rude to people who criticise guess what? No, not science, not facts, not rationality, but Donald Trump

                Who the target of a lie is does not affect my willingness to correct the lie. That’s called having values, instead of a political team. That’s what it means to be objective.

                There is a lot of justified criticism to be levied against Trump, based on facts of what he’s actually done. But there is also a lot of bullshit that’s swallowed whole by people who don’t care what’s true, but will just accept, without scrutiny, anything claimed about him that’s negative.

                When I know something is inaccurate, I will say so. Who or what is inaccurate about, is irrelevant, to me. I’d just as quickly debunk bullshit about Harris, or anyone else if I saw it.

                the fact that it makes you cross that lots of women are checking that their husbands can’t find out how they voted, or even that Google thought they might, and that you’re calling people names for thinking it might be happening, doesn’t particularly convince me that this is not happening.

                Pff, it doesn’t make me cross, I’m simply bringing some facts to a table that’s gone off the deep end with alarmism, clearly because they don’t understand how trending algorithms work.

                This is a manifestation of the exact same phenomenon as people thinking, for example, that there is more violent crime now than there was 50 years ago, based on the fact that they are exposed to so much more crime reporting now via the Internet than ever before. I’m the guy who’s coming along saying “actually, all the evidence shows violent crime is way down now compared to then, your recency and exposure biases are just tricking you into thinking differently.”

                You’re shooting the messenger trying to clue you in to the fact that your assumptions are clouding your judgement, nothing more.

            • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              22 days ago

              According to google the trending suggestions is based on how broadly popular search queries are, with extra weight given to searches in a recent calendar period.

              • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                21 days ago

                Okay, so women asking about their husbands baptizing them is right there in the top 5 suggestions beginning with that phrase.

                Think for a moment about how many women you really think are actually googling that, and that’ll give you an idea of how many women are actually googling this.

                It really doesn’t take a very high absolute number of people to make a Google search trend, especially when it’s a search based on a headline that went viral during an election season.

                • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  21 days ago

                  Have you ever lived in the midwest, or south east, where born again christiniaty is the norm? I can absolutely see this being a normal search in a lot of places, yes.