Misplaced Pages

Streisand effect: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:47, 11 January 2009 editMcGeddon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers121,439 edits rearranging lead to put derivation above "is related to"← Previous edit Revision as of 08:24, 12 January 2009 edit undoAltenmann (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers217,801 edits rv dubious example, not described as "streisand effect" anywhereNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-semi-protected|small=yes|expiry=March 13, 2009}} {{pp-semi-protected|small=yes|expiry=March 13, 2009}}
The '''Streisand effect''' is a ] where an attempt to ] or remove a piece of information backfires, causing the information to be widely publicized. Examples of such attempts include censoring a ], a ], a ], or a ] (for example via a ]). Instead of being suppressed, the information quickly receives extensive publicity, often being widely ] across the ], or distributed on ].<ref name=London>Canton, David. , '']'', 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."</ref><ref>Mugrabi, Sunshine. {{dead link|date=October 2008}}, '']'', January 22, 2007. Retrieved July 21, 2007. "Another ] 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."</ref> ] said he jokingly coined the term in January 2005 “to describe increasingly common phenomenon”,<ref>, techdirt.com, July 13, 2006.</ref> the name being taken from a 2003 incident in which the ] ] attempted to use legal process to preserve her ], only to see the matter become far more prominent as a result. The '''Streisand effect''' is a ] where an attempt to ] or remove a piece of information backfires, causing the information to be widely publicized. Examples of such attempts include censoring a ], a ], a ], or a ] (for example via a ]). Instead of being suppressed, the information quickly receives extensive publicity, often being widely ] across the ], or distributed on ].<ref name=London>Canton, David. , '']'', 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."</ref><ref>Mugrabi, Sunshine. {{dead link|date=October 2008}}, '']'', January 22, 2007. Retrieved July 21, 2007. "Another ] 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."</ref> ] said he jokingly coined the term in January 2005 “to describe increasingly common phenomenon.”<ref>, techdirt.com, July 13, 2006.</ref> The effect is related to ] observation that "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."<ref>Philip Elmer-Dewitt. ". ], 6 December 1993, No. 49. See also ].</ref>


The Streisand effect is named after a 2003 incident in which the ] ] attempted to use legal process to preserve her ], only to see the matter become far more prominent as a result.
The effect is related to ] observation that "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."<ref>Philip Elmer-Dewitt. ". ], 6 December 1993, No. 49. See also ].</ref>


==Etymology== ==Etymology==
Line 12: Line 12:
|author=Steve Brown |author=Steve Brown
|publisher=CNSNews.com |publisher=CNSNews.com
}}{{dead link|date=October 2008}}</ref><ref name="techdirt">, techdirt.com</ref><ref name=London/> Adelman stated that he was photographing beachfront property to document coastal erosion as part of the ].<ref name="smoking"></ref> Paul Rogers of the '']'' later noted that the picture of Streisand’s house was popular on the Internet.<ref name=rogers>{{cite web|url=http://www.californiacoastline.org/news/sjmerc5.html |title=Photo of Streisand home becomes an Internet hit |accessdate=2007-06-15 |last=Rogers |first=Paul |date=2003-06-24 |publisher=], mirrored at californiacoastline.org}}</ref> }}{{dead link|date=October 2008}}</ref><ref name="techdirt">, techdirt.com</ref><ref name=London/> Adelman claims he was photographing beachfront property to document coastal erosion as part of the ].<ref name="smoking"></ref> Paul Rogers of the '']'' later noted that the picture of Streisand’s house was popular on the Internet.<ref name=rogers>{{cite web|url=http://www.californiacoastline.org/news/sjmerc5.html |title=Photo of Streisand home becomes an Internet hit |accessdate=2007-06-15 |last=Rogers |first=Paul |date=2003-06-24 |publisher=], mirrored at californiacoastline.org}}</ref>


==Examples== ==Examples==
Line 45: Line 45:
|publisher=The Register |publisher=The Register
}}</ref> and the publicity surrounding the censorship resulted in the image being spread across other sites.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web/wikipedia-added-to-child-pornography-blacklist/2008/12/08/1228584723764.html|title=Misplaced Pages added to child pornography blacklist|last=Moses|first=Asher|date=December 8, 2008|work=Sydney Morning Herald|accessdate=2008-12-09}}</ref> The IWF were later reported on the ] 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."''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7774102.stm|title=IWF backs down on Wiki censorship |date=December 9, 2008|accessdate=2008-12-09|publisher=BBC News Online}}</ref> This effect was also noted by the IWF in their statement about the removal of the URL from the black list.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm|title=IWF statement regarding Misplaced Pages webpage |date=December 9, 2008|accessdate=2008-12-09|publisher=Internet Watch Foundation}}</ref><ref name=living/> }}</ref> and the publicity surrounding the censorship resulted in the image being spread across other sites.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web/wikipedia-added-to-child-pornography-blacklist/2008/12/08/1228584723764.html|title=Misplaced Pages added to child pornography blacklist|last=Moses|first=Asher|date=December 8, 2008|work=Sydney Morning Herald|accessdate=2008-12-09}}</ref> The IWF were later reported on the ] 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."''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7774102.stm|title=IWF backs down on Wiki censorship |date=December 9, 2008|accessdate=2008-12-09|publisher=BBC News Online}}</ref> This effect was also noted by the IWF in their statement about the removal of the URL from the black list.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm|title=IWF statement regarding Misplaced Pages webpage |date=December 9, 2008|accessdate=2008-12-09|publisher=Internet Watch Foundation}}</ref><ref name=living/>

* In 2004, a website named RedneckJunk.com intended to sponsor the ] car in the ]. ] disallowed this, and forced the team to remove the decals from the car, considering it was detrimental to good taste. The incident was featured prominently on TV and sports media. As a result of this, the website got more than 100,000 hits within an hour. <ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sptimes.com/2004/03/27/news_pf/Sports/Site_notable_after_be.shtml |first=Brant |last=James |title=Sports:Site notable after being junked|work=]|date=27 March 2004|accessdate=11 January 2009}}</ref>


In addition, Andy Greenberg of '']'' mentions three prominent incidents as examples of the Streisand effect:<ref name=greenberg/> In addition, Andy Greenberg of '']'' mentions three prominent incidents as examples of the Streisand effect:<ref name=greenberg/>

Revision as of 08:24, 12 January 2009

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 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 quickly receives extensive publicity, often being widely mirrored across the Internet, or distributed on file-sharing networks. Mike Masnick said he jokingly coined the term in January 2005 “to describe increasingly common phenomenon.” The effect is related to John Gilmore's observation that "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

The Streisand effect is named after a 2003 incident in which the singer Barbra Streisand attempted to use legal process to preserve her privacy, only to see the matter become far more prominent as a result.

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 removed from the publicly available collection of 12,000 California coastline photographs, citing privacy concerns. Adelman claims he was photographing beachfront property to document coastal erosion as part of the California Coastal Records Project. Paul Rogers of the San Jose Mercury News later noted that the picture of Streisand’s house was popular on the Internet.

Examples

  • 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. 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."
  • On December 5, 2008, the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) added the Misplaced Pages 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". The article quickly became one of the most popular pages on the site, and the publicity surrounding the censorship resulted in the image being spread across other sites. 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." This effect was also noted by the IWF in their statement about the removal of the URL from the black list.

In addition, Andy Greenberg of Forbes mentions three prominent incidents as examples of the Streisand effect:

  • 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.” “ 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.”
  • 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 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.”
  • 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.

See also

References

  1. ^ 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., 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. “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 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 2007-06-15.
  10. Mathew Ingram (January 19, 2008). "Scientology vs. the Internet, part XVII". The Globe & Mail. Retrieved 2008-01-19.
  11. Various Sources (January 19, 2008). "Church of Scientology warns Wikileaks over documents". Wikinews. Retrieved 2008-04-07.
  12. Various Sources (January 19, 2008). "Church of Scientology collected Operating Thetan documents". Wikileaks. Retrieved 2008-03-24.
  13. ^ "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)
  14. Schofield, Jack (8 December 2008). "Misplaced Pages page censored in the UK for 'child pornography'". The Guardian. Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 9 December 2008.
  15. Cade Metz (December 7, 2008). "Brit ISPs censor Misplaced Pages over 'child porn' album cover". The Register. Retrieved 2008-12-09.
  16. Moses, Asher (December 8, 2008). "Misplaced Pages 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. "IWF statement regarding Misplaced Pages webpage". Internet Watch Foundation. December 9, 2008. Retrieved 2008-12-09.
  19. ^ 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.
  20. 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.
  21. kdawson (May 1, 2007). "Digg.com Attempts To Suppress HD-DVD Revolt". Retrieved 2007-05-01.

External links

  • Blog standard, Economist magazine, 26 June 2008
Anonymous and the Internet
Related websites
Groups
Activities
Internet portal
Categories: