Citations:Streisand effect

English citations of Streisand effect

phenomenon in which attempting to suppress an item of information attracts additional unwanted attention to it, thus furthering the spreading of the information

California Coastal Records Project photo of coastline including Streisand Estate (2002).

							2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
ME «	15th c.	16th c.	17th c.	18th c.	19th c.	20th c.	21st c.

2005

• 2005 January 5, Mike Masnick, “Since When Is It Illegal To Just Mention A Trademark Online?”, in techdirt: Legal Issues‎^[1], retrieved October 29, 2012:

  How long is it going to take before lawyers realize that the simple act of trying to repress something they don't like online is likely to make it so that something that most people would never, ever see (like a photo of a urinal in some random beach resort) is now seen by many more people? Let's call it the Streisand Effect.

• 2005 September 25, “Contraband Mini-Subway Maps For Portable Devices Suddenly All The Rage”, in techdirt‎^[2], retrieved October 30, 2012:

  Of course, like all good contraband things, this effort appears to be having the reverse effect. Consider it the Streisand Effect meets the Subway. Engadget is reporting that now (perhaps for a limited time) you can download NYC subway maps to your PSP. For each effort to smack down these maps, expect many more to pop up.

2006

• 2006 May 18, Mike Masnick, “The Streisand Effect Takes Up Residence In Project Entropia”, in techdirt‎^[3], retrieved October 30, 2012:

  This is a classic Streisand Effect case. The original blog post was already fading away. However, now that they've made a big stink about how it's slander and should be taken down, a lot more people are going to see it.

• 2006 May 22, Mike Masnick, “Is The RIAA Lawsuit Acting As Free Advertising For The XM Inno Device?”, in techdirt‎^[4], retrieved October 30, 2012:

  It's another Streisand Effect situation, where a product that many of us never would have paid attention to gets a lot more publicity. If anything, the RIAA's decision to sue over this device probably alerted many more people about how XM was offering such a useful gadget.

• 2006 July 24, Mike Masnick, “Why Sue Over Wikipedia Posts?”, in techdirt‎^[5], retrieved October 30, 2012:

  However, by going the legal route, they've suddenly given those statements a lot more prominence, a la the Streisand Effect.

• 2006 November 22, Carlo Longino, “Streisand Effect For Make Benefit Alcohol Vaporizers, Glorious Nation Of Kazakhstan”, in techdirt‎^[6], retrieved October 30, 2012:

  The Streisand Effect -- when efforts to shut down or ban something merely call more attention to it and make it far more popular -- is alive and well: The Wall Street Journal has the story of a company that makes alcohol inhalers, some sort of device that lets people breathe in alcoholic drinks rather than, uh, drink them. The devices weren't selling at all, and the company had no money to market them -- until a Kentucky legislator tried to get the devices banned, sending sales through the roof.

2007

• 2007 May 2, Mike Masnick, “AACS Discovers The Streisand Effect: The More You Try To Suppress Something, The More Attention It Gets”, in techdirt‎^[7], retrieved October 30, 2012:

  What's more intriguing here is trying to understand the thought process behind the decision to send out these takedown notices. As anyone who's been online for more than about two days knows, the more you try to suppress something online, the more attention you're going to call to it. Years back, we jokingly referred to this as the Streisand Effect -- after an incident where Barbara Streisand tried to remove some photos from the web, making them a lot more popular. The name has stuck, and it still amazes us that anyone doesn't recognize what will happen when they try to make such a move. While the group has forced some sites to pull pages here and there, every page they pull is just increasing the anger from a growing group of folks who are making sure the number shows up in many, many more places -- including directly in a URL.

• 2007 May 3, Rebecca Dube, “An online revolution: Can you Digg it?”, in The Globe and Mail:

  The Digg-DVD donnybrook is the latest example of what's come to be called the “Streisand Effect,” in which efforts to squelch a bit of online information lead to that information being much more widely disseminated than it otherwise would have been.

• 2007 May 11, Andy Greenberg, “Internet: The Streisand Effect”, in Forbes‎^[8], Forbes Publishing, retrieved October 29, 2012:

  When the Streisand effect takes hold, contraband doesn't disappear quietly. Instead, it infects the online community in a pandemic of free-speech-fueled defiance, gaining far more attention than it would have had the information's original owners simply kept quiet.

• 2007 May 11, Mike Masnick, “Forbes Takes On The Streisand Effect; If I Ask Them To Take It Down Will It Become More Famous?”, in techdirt‎^[9], retrieved October 30, 2012:

  Earlier this week I spent nearly an hour on the phone with Forbes reporter Andy Greenberg discussing the concept behind "The Streisand Effect," the phrase I jokingly coined, which has taken on a life of its own. He's now written up an article looking at the Streisand Effect and how not understanding it has backfired for so many companies (and governments).

2008

• 2008 February 29, Robert Siegel, “'Streisand Effect' Snags Effort to Hide Documents”, in All Things Considered‎^[10], National Public Radio, retrieved 2012-10-29:

  Recently, a judge ordered some leaked documents concerning the Swiss bank Julius Baer to be removed from a Web site. But, instead of hiding the documents from public view, the judge's action drew more attention to them. The episode is the latest example of a phenomenon known as the "Streisand Effect." Robert Siegel talks with Mike Masnick, CEO of Techdirt Inc., who coined the term.

• 2008 November 19, Joshua Errett, “Khalid mosque sings Streisand”, in Now‎^[11], volume 28, number 12, →ISSN:

  Other notable Canadian censorship attempts are have had such strong Streisand Effects, they might as well have directed and starred in the romantic drama Prince Of Tides.

• 2008 December 26, Evgeny Morozov, “Free speech and the Internet: Living with the Streisand Effect”, in The New York Times‎^[12], retrieved 2012-10-29:

  As the Streisand Effect gradually becomes required textbook material for any student of public relations, it's surprising to see that some organizations and individuals still prefer to operate in the pre-Streisand age of threats and court orders. For better or worse, the Internet does not adequately respond to the threat of legal action: One simply can't sue so many often anonymous individuals from so many jurisdictions.

• 2008, Charlene Li, Josh Bernoff, Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies, Harvard Business School Press, →ISBN, page 5:

  Mike Masnick, a blogger for Techdirt, coined the term Streisand effect for events where attempts to remove content from the Internet cause it to spread broadly instead.

2009

• 2009, John W. Dozier, Sue Scheff, Google Bomb: The Untold Story of the $11.3M Verdict That Changed the Way We Use the Internet, HCI, →ISBN, page 40:

  No matter how effective your rebuttal may seem to be to you, a response will "bump" the problem into greater prominence and relevance in the search engine results, which then turns your headache into a migraine. This is doubly dangerous since "bumping" the negative information potentially introduces the "Streisand Effect" into the equation, which is something to avoid if at all possible. It is commonly defined as a phenomenon in which an attempt to censor or remove a piece of information on the web backfires, causing greater publicity.

• 2009, William F. Eadie, 21st Century Communication: A Reference Handbook, Sage Publications, Inc, →ISBN, page 163:

  A phenomenon dubbed the Streisand Effect has already sparked attention. Similar to the scarcity principle, when demands are made to remove videos or documents on the Web, hits for those materials increase dramatically. It seems a "forbidden fruit" is all the more attractive.

• 2009, Kyle Lacy, Twitter Marketing For Dummies, For Dummies, →ISBN, page 215:

  Say you discover that people aren't just talking about you, they're bashing you. Should you step in and try to stop them? Again, the answer is absolutely no! Leave them alone – you'll only make the problems worse and create a Streisand Effect if you try to hush them up.

• 2009 January 31, Milo Yiannopoulos, “What is 'The Streisand Effect'?”, in The Daily Telegraph‎^[13], Telegraph Media Group Limited, retrieved October 29, 2012:

  But I'm considerably less apprehensive than I was even a year ago about running Scientology scoops. Why? Because the Church is now a victim of The Streisand Effect.

• 2009 September 11, Jim Emerson, “Teaching the controversy”, in Scanners‎^[14], Chicago Sun-Times, retrieved 2009-10-16:

  At the bottom of the homepage is this [disclaimer] ... But that hasn't stopped Beck's lawyers from trying to shut down the site -- resulting in more blowback and another manifestation of the dreaded Streisand Effect!

2010

• 2010, Jane Bozarth, Social Media for Trainers, Wiley Publishing, →ISBN, page 8:

  Streisand Effect: Online phenomenon in which an attempt to censor or block information has the unintended result of drawing additional attention to it.

• 2010, Milton L. Mueller, Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance, The MIT Press, →ISBN, pages 28–29:

  It fell victim to what is often called the “Streisand effect,” in which an attempt to repress information attracts more attention to it. The controversy over the album cover sparked millions of downloads and distributions of the Virgin Killer image from other sources.

• 2010, Michael Fertik, David Thompson, Wild West 2.0: How to Protect and Restore Your Online Reputation on the Untamed Social Frontier, Amacom, →ISBN, page 56:

  The “Streisand Effect” describes what happens when an attempt to get rid of content causes it to become even more permanent.

• 2010 December 17, K Vaidya Nathan, “Beware the Streisand effect”, in The Indian Express‎^[15], The Indian Express Limited, retrieved October 29, 2012:

  Though, the action of the US government was intended to suppress the leaks, the ‘Streisand effect’ made sure that the outcome was exactly the opposite. People all over the world, who hadn’t even heard of the Website, were typing WikiLeaks.org on their keyboards only to find a site-unavailable message, which increased their curiosity. People sympathetic to WikiLeaks, in the meantime, had voluntarily mirrored the website in order to keep it online.

2011

• 2011, Andrew Hiles, Reputation Management, Bloomsbury Publishing, →ISBN:

  More recently, in May 2011, the use of injunctions to gag the press led to a “Streisand effect” for the litigant footballer who sought an injunction to prevent the publication of details of his alleged affair.

• 2011, Dr Alan Glazier, Searchial Marketing, AuthorHouse, →ISBN, page 146:

  Mike Masnick, a blogger for Techdirt, coined the term 'Streisand effect' for events where attempts to remove content from the Internet cause it to spread broadly instead.

• 2011, Richard Torrenzano, Mark Davis, Digital Assassination: Protecting Your Reputation, Brand, or Business Against Online Attacks, Macmillan, →ISBN, page 25:

  Since then, the tendency of cease-and-desist letters to spread unwanted or damaging information or images has been called the Streisand Effect. So it is almost impossible for an offended person to compel the total removal of something off the web that has already achieved some notoriety without making it more widespread.

• 2011, David Eagleman, Why the Net Matters, or Six Easy Ways to Avert the Collapse of Civilization, Canongate Books, →ISBN:

  The inability to erase information has already taken on a name: the Streisand Effect.

• 2011, Tim Tyler, Memetics: Memes and the Science of Cultural Evolution, Mersenne Publishing, →ISBN, page 176:

  Streisand Effect: When an attempt to censor or hide something from the general public results in its unexpected/sudden rise in popularity.

• 2011 July 1, Richard J. Peltz-Steele, “US Business Tort Liability for the Transnational Republisher of Leaked Corporate Secrets”, in Amity Journal of Media and Communication Studies‎^[16], volume 1, number 1, →ISSN, page 71:

  Ultimately the court rescinded the injunction, citing both free expression and futility, and Baer Bank learned a hard lesson on the “Streisand effect”: the ironic tendency of the Internet to amplify the distribution of information that someone tries to squelch.

• 2011 May 12, Ashlee Vance, Michael Riley, “Technology - Sony: The Company That Kicked the Hornet's Nest”, in BusinessWeek‎^[17], Bloomberg L.P., retrieved October 29, 2012:

  There's an Internet phenomenon called the Streisand Effect. It happens when a person or company tries to suppress a piece of information and, in so doing, unintentionally popularizes it.

2012

• 2012, Ashley Packard, Digital Media Law, Wiley-Blackwell, →ISBN, page 144:

  The phenomenon is known as the Streisand Effect. The term refers to the likelihood that efforts to censor information will draw greater attention to it.

• 2012 January 22, geopgeop Level 7, “Lock the Message to New Mappers?”, in General Map Maker‎^[18] (Usenet):

  It's not even the right venue for this guy to complain about his privacy. This is an open Map Maker forum where it is visible to all (or until the message is deleted). This link should be the right place to complain (and avoid any potential Streisand effects)

• 2012 January 27, Matt Warman, “What right do we have to be forgotten?”, in The Daily Telegraph‎^[19], Telegraph Media Group Limited:

  In 2003 Barbra Streisand went to great efforts to suppress a photograph of her Malibu house that had been published online. The simple aim was to preserve her privacy from what she apparently regarded as voyeuristic interest in her private life. Yet the effect was quite the opposite; as soon as people heard of her attempts, the image went around the world far faster than it ever would have done otherwise. The Streisand effect was born.

• 2012 February 28, Evgeny Morozov, The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom, PublicAffairs, →ISBN, pages 121–122:

  The logic behind the Streisand Effect, however, does not have much to do with the Internet. Throughout history there has hardly been a more effective way to ensure that people talk about something than to ban discussions about it.

• 2012 March 6, Andrew Mueller, “Suing Google Street View: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?”, in BusinessWeek‎^[20], Bloomberg, retrieved 2012-10-30:

  This appears an elementary failure to heed the Streisand Effect—the law which holds that attempting to suppress online information will inevitably result in its widespread dissemination. (The principle is named for Barbra Streisand, whose efforts to remove pictures of her Malibu home from the Internet made it one of the most famous dwellings in California).

• 2012 June 15, Mario Cacciottolo, “The Streisand Effect: When censorship backfires”, in BBC News‎^[21], BBC, retrieved 2012-10-29:

  Paul Armstrong, head of social for Mindshare, a global media network, says the Streisand Effect is a reminder to brands and celebrities about the effect groups, and individuals, can have on the internet in a very short space of time.

• 2012 June 26, Jonathan Bailey, “Understanding the Streisand Effect”, in PlagiarismToday‎^[22], retrieved 2012-11-04:

  Streisand Effects are most common when the person doing the silencing is seen as either being a big party silencing a smaller one or someone who is otherwise abusing power.