From the link:
> The Streisand effect is a social phenomenon that occurs when an attempt to hide, remove, or censor information has the unintended consequence of further publicizing that information, often via the Internet.
It’s not so much about whether a piece of information has been “published” or “publicized,” (although obviously that is typically the situation!) - but rather the act of trying to control the narrative causes the narrative to spin further away from your control.
Anyways, pedantry aside, to me this neatly fits the definition. There is information that Coinbase really doesn’t want out there: and their attempt at controlling the narrative has ensured I will be looking for this article and make time to read it as soon as it is published.
The Streisand Effect is when an attempt to censor information from becoming public backfires and instead spreads the information more widely due to public attention.
> The Streisand effect is the 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.
The Streisand effect is the 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 something is being kept from them, their motivation to access and spread the information is increased.[1]
Not really. Streisand Effect is defined as "a phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely."[0], so it seems to fit perfectly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect - The Streisand effect is a social phenomenon that occurs when an attempt to hide, remove, or censor information has the unintended consequence of further publicizing that information, often via the Internet.
> The Streisand effect is a social phenomenon that occurs when an attempt to hide, remove, or censor information has the unintended consequence of further publicizing that information
The Streisand effect is the 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. [1]
The Streisand effect is a primarily online phenomenon in which an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of perversely causing the information to be publicized more widely and to a greater extent than would have occurred if no contrary action had been attempted. It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, following a 2003 incident in which her attempts to suppress photographs of her residence inadvertently generated further publicity.
> The Streisand effect is the 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 [wiki]
The streisand effect is about censorship, not about propaganda. If the current coverage is negative, it's a smear campaign at best. Censorship would be refusing to publish any articles on ad blocking entirely and somehow trying to get the apps taken down from the app store.
The Streisand Effect has more to do with calling attention to something with your efforts to suppress it. The fact that they are trying to block the FOIA requests is putting the spotlight on themselves in a greater way than just releasing the information would have.
The Streisand Effect as defined by Wikipedia is the same thing. People set up mirrors and spread it all over the place in reaction to the the heavy-handed attempts to suppress it because: 1) people are rebelling against the heavy-handed attempts to censor the information and 2) the heavy-handed attempts to suppress the information call greater attention to the information in the first place (i.e. more people hear about it and join in on the attempts to spread/mirror the information). The effects of (1) wouldn't be so great without the effects of (2).
In this case, the actual information isn't out in the wild, but the attempts to block the price lists from being released are drawing greater media attention to the FOIA requests.
I'm not sure it applies. Streisand effect is more when one person/group wants to publish something and another more powerful group wants it hidden, people want to root for the underdog. In this case they're both the same group. When the original group says they made mistakes, it sort of taints how much people value it.
I hate references to the Streisand effect, because in the age of digital censorship, you have absolutely no idea which stories are _failing_ to invoke the Streisand effect.
I'm absolutely sure a lot of news is completely successfully censored, and calling out the effect on the ???5%??? of stories which break through does nothing except hide that fact from us.
From the link: > The Streisand effect is a social phenomenon that occurs when an attempt to hide, remove, or censor information has the unintended consequence of further publicizing that information, often via the Internet.
It’s not so much about whether a piece of information has been “published” or “publicized,” (although obviously that is typically the situation!) - but rather the act of trying to control the narrative causes the narrative to spin further away from your control.
Anyways, pedantry aside, to me this neatly fits the definition. There is information that Coinbase really doesn’t want out there: and their attempt at controlling the narrative has ensured I will be looking for this article and make time to read it as soon as it is published.
reply