Streisand effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Streisand effect is a phenomenon on the Internet where an attempt to censor or remove a piece of information backfires, causing the information to be widely publicized. Examples are attempts to censor a photograph, a file, or even a whole website, especially by means of cease-and-desist letters. Instead of being suppressed, the information sometimes quickly receives extensive publicity, often being widely mirrored across the Internet, or distributed on file-sharing networks.[1][2] Mike Masnick said he jokingly coined the term in January 2005, “to describe [this] increasingly common phenomenon.”[3] The effect is related to John Gilmore's observation that, "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."[4]

Contents

[edit] Etymology

The term Streisand effect originally referred to a 2003 incident in which Barbra Streisand sued photographer Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for US$50 million in an attempt to have the aerial photo of her house[5] removed from the publicly available collection of 12,000 California coastline photographs, citing privacy concerns.[6][7][1] Adelman claims he was photographing beachfront property to document coastal erosion as part of the California Coastal Records Project.[8] Paul Rogers of the San Jose Mercury News later noted that the picture of Streisand’s house was popular on the Internet.[9]

[edit] Examples

Andy Greenberg of Forbes mentions three prominent incidents as examples of the Streisand effect:[10]

  • An attempt at blocking an HD-DVD key from being published on Digg — “The online uproar came in response to a series of cease-and-desist letters […] demanding that the code be removed from several high-profile Web sites. Rather than wiping out the code, […] the letters led to its proliferation on Web sites, in chat rooms, inside cleverly doctored digital photographs and on user-submitted news sites. […] The ironic thing is, because they tried to quiet it down, it’s the most famous number on the Internet.”[11] “[…] at this writing, about 283,000 pages contain the number […] There’s a song. Several domain names including variations of the number have been reserved.”[12]
  • Bhumibol Adulyadej, the King of Thailand, was portrayed with feet superimposed over his head in a video posted by a YouTube user named "Padidda". “The Thai government charged the site with lèse majesté, insulting the monarch, and […] banned the site altogether. YouTube users around the world responded by posting a series of Bhumibol-bashing clips, some even more offensive than the originals […]. Each clip has been viewed tens of thousands of times”[10]
  • Video clips portraying paparazzi footage of Brazilian television personality Daniela Cicarelli having sex with her boyfriend on a beach in Spain were uploaded to YouTube. Court injunctions, which culminated in the blocking of YouTube in Brazil, proved unsuccessful in preventing the spread of the video, and only raised the ire of fans.[10]

In addition, 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[13]. The church's attempt to remove a series of OT document leaks onto Wikileaks during early April 2008 prompted Wikileaks to respond by vowing to "release several thousand additional pages of Scientology material next week." [14][15]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b Canton, David. "Today's Business Law: Attempt to suppress can backfire", London Free Press, November 5, 2005. Accessed July 21, 2007. 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. "YouTube—Censored? Offending Paula Abdul clips are abruptly taken down., Red Herring (magazine), January 22, 2007. Accessed 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. ^ “Is Leveraging the Streisand Effect Illegal?”, techdirt.com, July 13, 2006.
  4. ^ Philip Elmer-Dewitt. "First Nation in Cyberspace. Time International, 6 December 1993, No. 49. See also Wikiquote:John Gilmore.
  5. ^ California Coastal Records Project - Image 3850 - "Streisand Estate, Malibu"
  6. ^ Steve Brown (May 30, 2003). Streisand Sues Environmentalist Photographer for Website Photo. CNSNews.com. Retrieved on 2007-01-25.
  7. ^ Since When Is It Illegal to Just Mention a Trademark Online?, techdirt.com
  8. ^ The Smoking Gun
  9. ^ Rogers, Paul (2003-06-24). Photo of Streisand home becomes an Internet hit. San Jose Mercury News, mirrored at californiacoastline.org. Retrieved on 2007-06-15.
  10. ^ a b c Andy Greenberg. "The Streisand Effect", Forbes. Retrieved on 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." 
  11. ^ Brad Stone (May 3, 2007). How a Number Became the Latest Web Celebrity.. The New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-02-29. “Sophisticated Internet users have banded together over the last two days to publish and widely distribute a secret code used by the technology and movie industries to prevent piracy of high-definition movies.”
  12. ^ kdawson (May 1, 2007). Digg.com Attempts To Suppress HD-DVD Revolt. Retrieved on 2007-05-01.
  13. ^ Martin Ingram (January 19, 2008). Scientology vs. the Internet, part XVII. The Globe & Mail. Retrieved on 2008-01-19.
  14. ^ Various Sources (January 19, 2008). Church of Scientology warns Wikileaks over documents. Wikinews. Retrieved on 2008-04-07.
  15. ^ Various Sources (January 19, 2008). Church of Scientology collected Operating Thetan documents. Wikileaks. Retrieved on 2008-03-24.
Languages