Jump to content

Streisand effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kevfs (talk | contribs) at 20:50, 13 October 2009 (Example added). 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 house which led to the initial controversy.

The Streisand effect is an Internet phenomenon where an attempt to censor or remove a piece of information backfires, causing the information to be publicized widely and to a greater extent than would have occurred if no censorship had been attempted. Examples of such attempts include censoring a photograph, a number, a file, or a website (for example via a cease-and-desist letter). Instead of being suppressed, the information receives extensive publicity, often being widely mirrored across the Internet, or distributed on file-sharing networks.[1][2]

Origin

Mike Masnick originally coined the term Streisand effect in reference 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 photograph of her house removed from the publicly available collection of 12,000 California coastline photographs, citing privacy concerns.[1][3][4] Adelman stated that he was photographing beachfront property to document coastal erosion as part of the California Coastal Records Project.[5] As a result of the case, public knowledge of the picture increased substantially and it became popular on the Internet, with more than 420,000 people visiting the site over the next month.[6]

Examples

  • In October 2009 the company Trafigura attempted to suppress a story in the Guardian about a question to be asked in the UK Parliament regarding their dumping of toxic waste, resulting in the story being circulated widely.
  • In April 2007, an attempt at blocking an AACS key from being published on Digg caused uproar when cease-and-desist letters demanded that the code be removed from several high-profile Web sites. This led to the key's proliferation across other web 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, and had appeared in a song on YouTube which had been played over 45,000 times.[7][8][9]
  • In April 2007, Bhumibol Adulyadej, the King of Thailand, was portrayed with feet superimposed over his head, an act extremely offensive to many Thai people, in a video posted by a YouTube user named "Padidda". The Thai government banned the site for lèse majesté, and many other YouTube users responded by posting other clips even more offensive to Bhumibol, leading to tens of thousands of views.[9]
  • In September 2006, 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 temporary blocking of YouTube in Brazil, proved unsuccessful in preventing the spread of the video.[9]
  • On December 5, 2008, the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) added the Wikipedia article 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".[10][11] The article quickly became one of the most popular pages on the site,[12] and the publicity surrounding the censorship resulted in the image being spread across other sites.[13] 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".[14] This effect was also noted by the IWF in their statement about the removal of the URL from the black list.[15][16]
  • In early April 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.[17][11][18][19] Similarly, the church attempted to remove a series of Operating Thetan (OT) document leaks from Wikileaks. Wikileaks responded by vowing to "release several thousand additional pages of Scientology material next week".[20]
  • In September 2009, the Photoshop Disasters blog posted an advertisement from Polo Ralph Lauren that contained a heavily manipulated image of a female model. The post was subsequently reprinted by BoingBoing[21]. Ralph Lauren issued DMCA takedown notices to BoingBoing's ISP and Blogspot, which hosts Photoshop Disasters, claiming their use of the image infringed copyright. Blogspot complied, but BoingBoing's ISP consulted with BoingBoing and agreed that the image was fair use. As a result, BoingBoing issued a mocking rebuttal[22], using the same image again and posting the takedown notice. The rebuttal was widely reported, including on frequently viewed websites such as The Huffington Post[23] and ABC News.[24]
  • On 12 October 2009, Trafigura instructed Carter-Ruck solicitors to seek an injunction preventing the Guardian newspaper from publishing a parliamentary question relating to the 2006 Côte d'Ivoire toxic waste dump scandal. The Guardian published a brief story about the injunction which led bloggers and others to track down the story and it was widely republished across the internet, became the top trending topic on Twitter and led to further questions in Parliament[25]

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. 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.[dead link], Red Herring (magazine), January 22, 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. ^ The Smoking Gun
  6. ^ 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.
  7. ^ Brad Stone (May 3, 2007). "How a Number Became the Latest Web Celebrity". New York Times. Retrieved 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.
  8. ^ kdawson (May 1, 2007). "Digg.com Attempts To Suppress HD-DVD Revolt". Retrieved 2007-05-01.
  9. ^ a b c 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. ^ Schofield, Jack (8 December 2008). "Wikipedia page censored in the UK for 'child pornography'". The Guardian. Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 9 December 2008.
  11. ^ a b http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/mar/20/streisand-effect-internet-law
  12. ^ Cade Metz (December 7, 2008). "Brit ISPs censor Wikipedia over 'child porn' album cover". The Register. Retrieved 2008-12-09.
  13. ^ Moses, Asher (December 8, 2008). "Wikipedia added to child pornography blacklist". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2008-12-09.
  14. ^ "IWF backs down on Wiki censorship". BBC News Online. December 9, 2008. Retrieved 2008-12-09.
  15. ^ "Living with the Streisand Effect". International Herald Tribune. 2008-12-26. Retrieved 2008-12-29. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  16. ^ "IWF statement regarding Wikipedia webpage". Internet Watch Foundation. December 9, 2008. Retrieved 2008-12-09.
  17. ^ Mathew Ingram (January 19, 2008). "Scientology vs. the Internet, part XVII". The Globe & Mail. Retrieved 2008-01-19.
  18. ^ http://www.complex.com/blogs/2009/07/24/the-streisand-effect-when-internet-censorship-backfires/
  19. ^ http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/miloyiannopoulos/8248311/What_is_The_Streisand_Effect/
  20. ^ "Church of Scientology warns Wikileaks over documents". Wikinews. 4 July 2008.
  21. ^ "Ralph Lauren opens new outlet store in the Uncanny Valley". Boing_boing. 29 September 2009.
  22. ^ "The criticism that Ralph Lauren doesn't want you to see!". Boing_boing. 6 October 2009.
  23. ^ "Boing Boing And Ralph Lauren Clash Over Image Of Emaciated Model". Huffington_Post. 6 October 2009.
  24. ^ "11 Photo-Editing Flubs: Ralph Lauren Ad Sparks Controversy". ABC News.
  25. ^ "Guardian injunction: Lib Dems table urgent question". Mark Pack. 13 October 2009.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Streisand_effect&oldid=319691550"