Jump to content

Streisand effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Steel (talk | contribs) at 12:40, 13 October 2012 (lead). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

File:Barbrahouse1.jpg
The image of Streisand's Malibu house that led to the naming of the effect.

The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the internet. The term is a modern expression of the older phenomenon that banning or censoring something often makes that item or information more desirable, and leads to it being actively sought out to a greater extent than it would have otherwise been.

It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose attempt in 2003 to suppress photographs of her residence inadvertently generated further publicity. Similar attempts have been made, for example, in cease-and-desist letters, to suppress numbers, files and websites. Instead of being suppressed, the information receives extensive publicity and media extensions such as videos and spoof songs, often being widely mirrored across the Internet or distributed on file-sharing networks.[1][2]

Mike Masnick of Techdirt coined the term after Streisand unsuccessfully sued photographer Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for violation of privacy. The US$50 million lawsuit endeavored to remove an aerial photograph of Streisand's mansion from the publicly available collection of 12,000 California coastline photographs.[1][3][4] Adelman maintained that he had photographed beachfront property to document coastal erosion as part of the government sanctioned and commissioned California Coastal Records Project.[5][6] Before Streisand filed her lawsuit, "Image 3850" had been downloaded from Adelman's website only six times; two of those downloads were by Streisand's attorneys.[7] As a result of the case, public knowledge of the picture increased substantially; more than 420,000 people visited the site over the following month.[8]

Examples

  • In April 2007, an attempt at blocking an Advanced Access Content System (AACS) key from being disseminated on Digg caused an uproar when cease-and-desist letters demanded the code be removed from several high-profile websites. This led to the key's proliferation across other sites and chat rooms in various formats, with one commentator describing it as having become "the most famous number on the internet". Within a month, the key had been reprinted on over 280,000 pages, printed on T-shirts and tattoos, and had appeared on YouTube in a song played over 45,000 times.[9]
  • In November 2007, Tunisia blocked access to YouTube and DailyMotion after material was posted of Tunisian political prisoners. Activists and their supporters then started to link the location of then-President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali's palace on Google Earth to videos about civil liberties in general. The Economist said this "turned a low-key human-rights story into a fashionable global campaign".[10]
  • In January 2008, The Church of Scientology's unsuccessful attempts to get Internet websites to delete a video of Tom Cruise speaking about Scientology resulted in the creation of Project Chanology.[11][12][13]
  • In 2008, the Pirate Bay was asked to censor a link to autopsy photos of two murdered children from a famous Swedish murder case. Peter Sunde, the Pirate Bay's spokesman said that removal would only increase public interest, according to the Streisand effect, and thus keeping the links served everybody's interest.[14]
  • On 5 December 2008, the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) added the Wikipedia article about the 1976 Scorpions album Virgin Killer to a child pornography blacklist, considering the album's cover art "a potentially illegal indecent image of a child under the age of 18".[11] The article quickly became one of the most popular pages on the site,[15] and the publicity surrounding the censorship resulted in the image being spread across other sites.[16] The IWF were later reported on the BBC News website to have said "IWF's overriding objective is to minimise the availability of indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion our efforts have had the opposite effect".[17] This effect was also noted by the IWF in their statement about the removal of the URL from the blacklist.[18][19]
  • In December 2010, the website WikiLeaks was the subject of DoS attacks and rejection from ISPs as a consequence of the United States cable leaks. People sympathetic to WikiLeaks' cause voluntarily mirrored the website in order to make it impossible for any one person to completely remove the cables.[20]
  • In June 2012, Argyll and Bute council banned a nine-year-old primary school pupil from updating her blog with photos of lunchtime meals served in the school's canteen. The blog, which was already popular, started receiving an immense amount of views due to the international media furor that followed the ban. Within days the council reversed their decision under immense public pressure and scrutiny. After the reversal of the ban, the blog is now far more popular than it was before.[21]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Canton, David. "Today's Business Law: Attempt to suppress can backfire", London Free Press, November 5, 2005. Retrieved July 21, 2007.[dead link] (Wayback Machine archive). The "Streisand effect" is what happens when someone tries to suppress something and the opposite occurs. The act of suppressing it raises the profile, making it much more well known than it ever would have been".
  2. ^ Mugrabi, Sunshine (January 22, 2007). "YouTube—Censored? Offending Paula Abdul clips are abruptly taken down". Red Herring. Archived from the original on February 18, 2007. Retrieved July 21, 2007. Another unintended consequence of this move could be that it extends the kerfuffle over Ms. Abdul's behavior rather than quelling it. Mr. Nguyen called this the 'Barbra Streisand effect', referring to that actress's insistence that paparazzi photos of her mansion not be used
  3. ^ Josh Bernoff (2008). Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press. p. 7. ISBN 1-4221-2500-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ Since When Is It Illegal to Just Mention a Trademark Online?, techdirt.com
  5. ^ "Barbra Sues Over Aerial Photos | [[The Smoking Gun]]". The Smoking Gun. 2003-05-30. Retrieved 2010-11-22. {{cite web}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
  6. ^ http://www.californiacoastline.org/streisand/lawsuit.html Link includes lawsuit filings. Streisand was ordered to pay $177,107.54 in court and legal fees. The site has an image of the $155,567.04 check Streisand paid for Adelman's legal fees.
  7. ^ Tentative ruling, page 6, stating, "Image 3850 was download six times, twice to the Internet address of counsel for plaintiff." In addition, two prints of the picture were ordered — one by Streisand's counsel and one by Streisand's neighbor. http://www.californiacoastline.org/streisand/slapp-ruling-tentative.pdf
  8. ^ Rogers, Paul (2003-06-24). "Photo of Streisand home becomes an Internet hit". San Jose Mercury News, mirrored at californiacoastline.org. Retrieved 2007-06-15.
  9. ^ Andy Greenberg (May 11, 2007). "The Streisand Effect". Forbes. Retrieved 2008-02-29. The phenomenon takes its name from Barbra Streisand, who made her own ill-fated attempt at reining in the Web in 2003. That's when environmental activist Kenneth Adelman posted aerial photos of Streisand's Malibu beach house on his Web site as part of an environmental survey, and she responded by suing him for $50 million. Until the lawsuit, few people had spotted Streisand's house, Adelman says—but the lawsuit brought more than a million visitors to Adelman's Web site, he estimates. Streisand's case was dismissed, and Adelman's photo was picked up by the Associated Press and reprinted in newspapers around the world.
  10. ^ "Blog standard: Authoritarian governments can lock up bloggers. It is harder to outwit them". The Economist. 26 June 2008. Retrieved 2010-12-06. WHAT do Barbra Streisand and the Tunisian president, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, have in common? They both tried to block material they dislike from appearing on the internet.
  11. ^ a b Arthur, Charles (2009-03-20). "The Streisand effect: Secrecy in the digital age". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2010-03-31.
  12. ^ "The Streisand Effect: When Internet Censorship Backfires". Complex. 2009-07-24. Retrieved 2010-04-27.
  13. ^ "What is 'The Streisand Effect'?". The Daily Telegraph. London. 2009-01-31. Retrieved 2010-03-31.
  14. ^ Andersson, Jonas (2009). "FOR THE GOOD OF THE NET: THE PIRATE BAY AS A STRATEGIC SOVEREIGN". Culture Machine VOL 10. If a link is removed, the most likely effect is that the removal will generate a backlash, where numerous other Internet actors will take over the file's circulation (this is commonly referred to as the 'Streisand effect').
  15. ^ Cade Metz (December 7, 2008). "Brit ISPs censor Wikipedia over 'child porn' album cover". The Register. Retrieved 2008-12-09.
  16. ^ Moses, Asher (December 8, 2008). "Wikipedia added to child pornography blacklist". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2008-12-09.
  17. ^ "IWF backs down on Wiki censorship". BBC News Online. December 9, 2008. Retrieved 2008-12-09.
  18. ^ "Living with the Streisand Effect". International Herald Tribune. 2008-12-26. Retrieved 2008-12-29.
  19. ^ "IWF statement regarding Wikipedia webpage". Internet Watch Foundation. December 9, 2008. Retrieved 2008-12-09.
  20. ^ Agence France-Presse (December 5, 2010). "How the Barbra Streisand Effect keeps WikiLeaks online". INQUIRER.net.
  21. ^ Mario Cacciottolo (June 15, 2012). "The Streisand Effect: When censorship backfires". BBC News.