The Streisand effect is a social phenomenon that Barbra Streisand and American entertainers proposed. When attempting to hide or remove or in some way censor information has the unintended consequence of publicizing it instead and bringing it to everyone’s attention.
The Streisand effect is when trying to suppress something causes even more attention to that particular thing. It’s like a domino effect where information spreads like a chain of reactions. Then anybody can easily go viral on the fastest internet and social media.
History of the Streisand effect
Let’s look at the namesake of the effect itself, Barbra Streisand. In 2003 photographer Kenneth Edelman took 12,000 photos of the California coastline to help document coastal erosion. One of those photos was of Barbra Streisand’s Malibu mansion. Streisand sued unsuccessfully to have the photo removed from the public collection.
The effect was simple. Before the lawsuit, the photo had been downloaded six times publicly, two of those by Streisand’s attorney. The photo was downloaded by people nearly half a million times!
There are endless mischief makers who would dedicate themselves to propagating information that someone wanted hidden. It does seem logical that as the internet grows and as long as it remains primarily unregulated.
What is the Streisand effect?
The Streisand effect observes that some efforts to suppress information can sometimes have the opposite effect. In other words, attempting to suppress information or commentary, especially on the internet, can sometimes draw more attention to that information than it would have received otherwise. It has been noted as creating a potential dilemma for possible litigants in certain cases, including defamation cases.
When an attempt to hide, suppress or censor certain information leads to a ripple effect of unintended, extensive publicity of the information, the phenomenon occurs when an attempt to hide, suppress or censor certain information. It is claimed that Barbara’s attempt at suppressing her Malibu residents’ photographs resulted in the photographs going viral on the Internet. When she tried taking legal action against the unlawful breach of privacy, her fans got upset.
Within a month, almost half a million people had access to the pictures. Before Barbra filed a lawsuit, not many people had seen the photograph. But once the news of the legal action broke, millions of people started online. The picture proliferated in online channels and forums. Streisand and her lawyers inadvertently brought attention to the very thing they wanted to suppress.
Attempts to censor information are often made through seizing and assisting letters. But instead of being suppressed, the information receives exorbitant publicity and media coverage in the form of videos and spoof songs, which can be mirrored on the Internet or distributed on file-sharing platforms. Their application becomes impossible to regulate as a Web server gets a new file and constantly queries by the search engines.
The web cache is updated with the location of the new file. That is impossible to erase. The Streisand effect is a vivid example of psychological resistance, wherein people are aware that some information is being kept from them. They’re significantly more determined to access and share that information. This implies that when you try so hard to hide something, it makes it more visible, especially if you’re a superstar.
Efforts to suppress a juicy piece of online information can backfire and end up making things worse for the would-be Senso – The Economist.
Social media has become the way of life, a bomb of information that can explode at any time. When someone tries hard to hide something, it explodes all the more. How news circulates on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter has become a commanding factor in protest movements, national elections, and commercial brands’ rise and fall. There is no denying that people are hooked on their social media handles, waiting to obsess over the latest gossip. No matter how irrelevant it is today.
Social media is the world’s biggest and most efficient copying machine. Put a document onto a connected network, and it will increase. The Internet’s irony is that when you want to be famous, you can’t. But if you find yourself in the spotlight and want to erase yourself, you cannot.
The evidence linger on the latest circulating information trend, and trending news on social media includes making and sharing means. It has become not only popular amongst youngsters but also the working class. It becomes a global obsession no matter what celebrities, influencers, or politicians do or say. A new meme is born. A Web user and his information are like a grizzly and game between them. And you’re likely to get mauled.
The web is like the mythical Hydra cut off one of its many heads, and two will grow back in its place, said Adoni Kevin Bankston. While reviewing the series of Bhumibol Zion clips portraying the king as a clown, various types of animals, and pedophiles.
Causes of the Streisand effect
There is 4 main reason for Streisand effect. They are:
- One is the social and human aspects of sharing information from one to the other.
- The second one is the speed of social velocity. It’s how fast the information travels from one person to the next.
- The third is the reach of the information, or they call the spread of information. How far it goes, the distance it travels, and how many people see it.
- The fourth one is bridging other networks. For it to be successful, the content has to not only spread but spread to other networks.
There is often a dilemma in filing a lawsuit that seeks to remove speech. Also, This is particularly common with defamation suits. That’s certainly not the only context that it can come up with. It can also arise in a breach of the non-disclosure agreement at any time when considering filing a lawsuit that seeks to have speech or communications removed from the public view. It runs the risk of drawing more attention to it than it would be.
In some cases, especially if the speech is already notorious and widely known, this risk can still be worth it. However, it creates a dilemma, especially if the speech in question would otherwise be relatively unknown.
Canton, David. “Today’s Business Law: Attempt to suppress can backfire.” London Free Press.
Burnett, Dean. “Why government censorship [in no way at all carries greater risks than benefits.” The Guardian. London.