> I love how the "Streisand effect" is an example of itself.
For the Streisand effect to be an example of itself, there would have to be an attempt to ban or suppress the usage or knowledge of the idea of the effect. I don't think that's happened, so I don't see how it's self-referential.
"It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose attempt to suppress the California Coastal Records Project's photograph of her residence in Malibu, California, taken to document California coastal erosion, inadvertently drew further attention to it in 2003."
My point is that more people know about Barbra Streisand and the Streisand Effect because of Streisand's attempts to suppress information.
I'd be willing to say that there are more people that know of Barbara Streisand for being Barbara Streisand than because of the Streisand Effect. That effect is a pretty niche kind of internet term whereas Streisand was proper famous well before the internet existed. Sure, you may have TIL who she was, but let's not swipe that broad brush so freely.
There's also a classic Liz Carroll reel, "Barbra Streisand's Trip to Saginaw": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr2RgTmO1pI
(I was in the (Saginaw) audience the night Liz named it.)
I'm guessing anyone in theater/drama/choir classes in high schools today would also be familiar regardless orientation. Venn diagrams of those groups would probably look very circle-ish.
Streisand was 22 in 1964 when her career kicked-off with Funny Girl. I think she (like Marvin Hamlisch) was more popular with the 'Silent Generation' (1928-45).
If Streisand had that kind of power at that time there could well have been no Streisand effect - though perhaps that is unconstitutional in the USA ....
Eh, I just looked it up and the Streisand effect was about an aerial photograph of Streisand's mansion which she wanted to hide, not about promotion of Streisand's work. So unless you downloaded that photo, I guess this is an anti-example (as in this case the effect worked in her favor, not against her).
She was trying to take down an image that was on a niche ecological website with six downloads. It is now the example image of a Wikipedia article on a commonly used term. That's a big net loss.
Not directly applicable to RIAA here as they started this by issuing the takedown requests, but I often get around the Streisand effect by ignoring things and then issuing takedown notices later.
Like for example, if something came out that some persons might use to try an embarrass me, I let it stay out for a while and don't really address it.
Two to three people tweet it and it doesn't go further, hundreds of people weren't compelled to save it "for the lulz". Then a few weeks or months later I get the service to take it down, the person that posted barely notices or understands that their voice is not strong enough and the bar to change that is much higher and they've moved on to some other issue de jour.
Yes, there is a possibility that it circulates pretty far initially, or that the thing being shared gets ingrained into the consciousness as truth, but in those circumstances providing a reaction involving the law or lawyers would still amplify it.
people try ad hominem attacks but nobody cares, or think that I’m vulnerable because I’ve had public facing roles and try to act on that but it’s just them wasting energy
its basically something like "what you can't have an opinion online! I can damage you therefore I'll try to damage you!" and then realize they have no reach and the world doesn't work the way they think it does
I was always surprised it was never referred to by an event that wildly predates the Streisand image: Alyssa Milano suing websites (Though apparently it was her mother filing the suits first) to try to have her nude images removed from the internet.
1998 sounded much more reasonable to me than 2003. But that is because, I for some reason thought that the streissand effect came to be following the Mecha Streissand episode of South Park
