- The Streisand Effect: why gatekeepers, censors, advertisers and propagandists fear it Archived Message
- The Streisand Effect: why gatekeepers, censors, advertisers and propagandists fear it - margo July 13, 2019, 9:37 am
- Re: The Streisand Effect: why gatekeepers, censors, advertisers and propagandists fear it - turtleman July 13, 2019, 7:10 pm
Posted by margo
on July 13, 2019, 9:37 am
|
When the laws of unintended consequences work for the people and the costs of punting disinformation become too high, for the punters ... The Streisand effect is a phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet. It is an example of psychological reactance, wherein once people are aware that some information is being kept from them, their motivation to access and spread it is increased. It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose 2003 attempt to suppress photographs of her residence in Malibu, California inadvertently drew further public attention to it. In 2003, the actress and singer sued a photographer and website for $50 million. This was an effort to have a photograph removed from a collection of 12,000 photos showing erosion on the California coastline, including one that included her Malibu beachfront home - not that the photo even mentioned that the entertainer or who owned said house. The lawsuit was unsuccessful, but what it did do was raise awareness of the photo and the fact that the home pictured belonged to Streisand. Additionally, the photo, which was only downloaded six times prior to the suit, went on to be seen by over 400,000 people in the next month alone. If she wanted to keep the fact that this is her home a secret, her plan backfired big time. Similar attempts have been made, for example, in cease-and-desist letters to suppress files, websites, and even numbers. Instead of being suppressed, the information receives extensive publicity and media extensions such as videos and spoof songs, often being widely mirrored on the Internet or distributed on file-sharing networks.  Actions backfire and leads to the opposite of the intended result. Psychologically speaking, people want things that are hidden away from them. Thus, they’re even more motivated to find and spread such information. Barbra Streisand isn’t the only one to suffer from this effect. Other individuals, businesses, and institutions have also felt the negative consequences from trying to censor information from the public. In 2013, Youtube user ghostlyrich uploaded a video that shows his Samsung Galaxy 4 catching fire. In the video, he explains that the company demanded proof that his phone was indeed defective before offering to replace it. Later, ghostlyrich received a settlement proposal from the company that agreed to exchange his phone as long as he deleted the video, promised not to make a similar video, absolved Samsung of any liability, waive his right to bring a lawsuit, and never make the terms of agreement public. To top it off, a witness would need to cosign the proposal. In response, ghostlyrich did the exact opposite of what Samsung wanted. He uploaded a second video where he shares the settlement proposal and explains how the company won’t deliver services in their warranty until the customer signs away their rights. As a result, the original video’s views surged up to 1.2 million views in a week. The lesson here is clear: Attempting to cover up information often only makes things worse. |
| Message Thread:
|