![[CENSORED]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/engl3022-60561mcmurraypowerpoint-160320034217/85/The-Streisand-Effect-1-320.jpg)
Recommended
More Related Content
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Featured
Featured (20)
The Streisand Effect
- 1. [CENSORED]
- 12. She said
- 19. !
- 21. [UNCENSORED]
- 22. References DARRIN, B. (2015, March 17). THE STREISAND EFFECT IS EVERGREEN. Daily Telegraph, The (Sydney). p. 21. JANSEN, S. C., & MARTIN, B. (2015). The Streisand Effect and Censorship Backfire. International Journal Of Communication (19328036), 9656-671. Masnick, Mark. "Since When Is It Illegal To Just Mention A Trademark Online?". Techdirt.. N.p., 2005. Web. 10 Mar. 2016 Wilson, J. (2013). How Beyoncé and the Church of Scientology fell foul of the Streisand Effect – Telegraph Blogs. Technology - Telegraph Blogs. Retrieved 20 March 2016. How the Trafigura story came to be told. (2009). the Guardian. Retrieved 20 March 2016. NeverSeconds blogger Martha Payne school dinner photo ban lifted - BBC News. (2012). BBC News. Retrieved 20 March 2016. Herald, N. (2010). How the Barbra Streisand Effect keeps WikiLeaks online. M.nzherald.co.nz. Retrieved 20 March 2016. Vamosi, R. (2008). Anonymous hackers take on the Church of Scientology. CNET. Retrieved 20 March 2016. How brands can avoid the dreaded 'Streisand Effect'. (2012). Prdaily.com. Retrieved 20 March 2016.
Editor's Notes
- CENSORED – A powerpoint by Alyssa McMurray explaining the Streisand Effect.
- [Click to reveal image] In 2003, Barbara Streisand sued Kenneth Adelman, a photographer, for invasion of privacy after he took a photograph of her home on the California coastline. Before the lawsuit, her photograph had been put on the California Coastal Records Project (a publicly accessible database of photographs) and had been downloaded only six times (two by her lawyers). (Jansen, 2015) The photograph shown is the actual photograph sued over. Photo Copyright (C) 2002 Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, California Coastal Records Project, www.californiacoastline.org
- In just one month after taking the photographer to court, the downloads of the photo jumped to over four hundred thousand. In December of 2003, the entire case was dismissed. (Jansen, 2015)
- With each attempt to hide her fame, Barbara Streisand inadvertently increased her publicity. Subsequently, anything that she tried to hide only became magnified.
- What happened next gave it all a name. Mark Masnick of Techdirt wrote an article asking “Since when is it illegal to just mention a trademark online?” This short rant about trademark law ended with the sentence “Let’s call it the Streisand Effect.” (Masnick, 2005) Background is a screenshot of the actual 2005 article from the Techdirt website.
- In short, the definition of the “Streisand Effect” is when someone attempts to silence or censor something, that something instead jumps directly into the spotlight and becomes very “viral” or noticed. It is the opposite of what the victim was intending.
- Since Streisand’s call to fame, many others have fallen victim to this privacy train wreck. In the upcoming slides I will present several examples.
- Hockey is another victim of the Streisand Effect. He ran a small fundraising group in which the membership cost $22,000 per year. A headline in a relatively small newspaper made him look very corrupt. (Darrin, 2015) Photo Copyright http://www.echo.net.au/2014/05/snake-oil-salesmen-sell-budget-lies/
- Once Hockey attempted to have the headline removed, the entire story went viral. People attacked him from all angles calling him corrupt. Once a valued politician, now a hated enemy. (Darrin, 2015). Photograph copyright Kitmu of dreamstime http://www.dreamstime.com/kmitu_info
- The Church of Scientology was another victim. Tom Cruise made a video promoting his religion, however, the Church quickly attempted to squelch the video. This did not work when the video then became an internet hit. (Wilson, 2013) Photograph from Wikimedia.
- Trafigura is a very large oil company that attempted to suppress the Guardian from publishing a report on Trafigura dumping toxic waste into the Ivory Coast. However, the report was published in other countries and on the Wikileaks website, causing the suppression-attempt to be spotlighted. The entire ordeal then blew up. (The Guardian, 2009)
- A very recent notable case of the Streisand effect is from the Super Bowl XLVII. Buzzfeed.com aired an article that critiqued some of Beyoncé’s photos taken during her performance. Her publisher found it offensive and demanded it be removed. However, Buzzfeed instead republished the photographs under the name, “The “Unflattering” Photos Beyoncé’s Publicist Doesn’t Want You To See!”. (Wilson, 2013)
- The examples so far have been of people receiving negative effects from the Streisand Effect. But really, did Beyoncé really suffer from those photos being shown? It is possible that she felt bad that those photos of her were unflattering, however, the exposure led to more people looking her up and listening to her music, thereby earning her more money.
- A wise man once said that any publicity is good publicity. While it may not be true to those that are not seeking fame, fortune, or anything, those who are will benefit from any publicity. In the upcoming slides I will give a few examples of when the Streisand effect instead was good for the ‘victim’.
- In 2010, WikiLeaks intended to release some US diplomatic cables that stretched from 1966-2010. WikiLeaks experienced a severe DDoS attack just before releasing these files by someone attempting to censor this release. (Herald, 2010)
- Then the Streisand Effect kicked in – people from everywhere began to set up mirrors and help distribute the information. WikiLeaks succeeded in its goal of releasing information and still today continues. (Herald, 2010) Photograph By Max Braun from San Francisco, USA - Wikileaks Protester, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=22642822
- Back to the Church of Scientology, while the Church experienced negative consequences, another group benefitted greatly. Anonymous became infuriated with the Church’s demand to remove Cruise’s video, so they attacked the Church in every way they could, including: prank calls, DDoS attacks, and even attempts to have the IRS revoke the tax-exempt status of the Church. While it was bad publicity for the Church, Anonymous gained great recognition. (Vamosi, 2008)
- In 2012, a 9 year old girl was told she was not allowed to photograph and blog about her school lunches because it could threaten the jobs of the staff. The school district ordered a cease and desist, however, instead, Payne’s blog became an internet sensation and the blogging ban was lifted. (BBC News, 2012)
- What is the Streisand Effect? Answer: It is when a person or group attempts to censor or silence something but instead the opposite occurs (the “something” becomes very popular) Where did the name come from? Answer: Barbara Streisand sued due to a photographer taking a photo of her house. Mike Masnick wrote an article and ended it saying “Let’s call it the Streisand Effect”. Who has been affected? Answer: There are many people that have been affected by this, I have listed Joe Hockey, The Church of Scientology, Trafigura, Beyonce, Wikileaks, Anonymous, and Martha Payne.
- PRDaily gives us several tips to avoid being victims of the Streisand Effect. They say to ignore it, fight it, or embrace it. They state that the lesson is that we can no longer hide from the truth. As long as you have no truth to hide from – you will be fine. (Prdaily.com, 2012)
- Once censored, now freely available: that’s the Streisand Effect.