Turns Out Barbra Streisand Is Aware Of The Streisand Effect, But Seems Confused About It
from the rarefied-air dept
As some folks know, back in 2005, right here on Techdirt, I coined “The Streisand Effect,” as a throwaway line at the end of a post. It was in reference to a story from two years earlier regarding Streisand suing photographer Ken Adelman after he had started the California Coastal Records Project, in which he aimed to photograph the west coast of the United States from a helicopter every few years to document erosion. One of the many, many photos on the site included Streisand’s coastal mansion. Streisand claimed that this was an invasion of privacy and violated California’s anti-paparazzi law. Except that before she filed the lawsuit the photo had a grand total of six views, two of which were by Streisand’s lawyers. Immediately after the lawsuit was filed, nearly half a million people viewed the image.
Hence, my coining of the Streisand Effect, that attempts to suppress information one does not like online are likely to make that content much, much, more visible.
However, until last week, I had no idea if Streisand herself had ever heard of the term. Honestly, I doubted that she had. While the term has taken on a life of its own (which I had nothing to do with after coining it), it still seemed at least obscure enough that it seemed unlikely that Streisand herself would come across it.
But, with the recent publication of her memoirs, we learn that she does indeed know about it.
“When I first heard the term, I naively thought, Is that about the effect of my music?” she wrote in her book. “Little did I know.”
Streisand went on to say she didn’t intend to try to remove the picture of her house from the website. She merely didn’t want her name to be publicized with it, for security reasons.
Apparently there’s a page and a half about it in the book, though I doubt I’ll read it.
As for the claim that she “didn’t intend to try to remove the picture,” the historical record says that’s bullshit. Here’s the original letter her lawyers sent Adelman:
The second thread letter was more explicit:
She very clearly was “intending to try to remove the picture.” And, I mean, the lawsuit says as much as well:
So, uh, no, Babs doesn’t get to rewrite the history here. She very clearly attempted to remove the image.
Oh yeah. As a few people alerted me, Irish Times film correspondent Donald Clarke posted on exTwitter a snippet of the book, in (way before the Streisand Effect ever becomes a thing) how she learned in the 1960s that, “I learned very quickly that if you tried to correct a story, it only drew more attention to it.” Clarke notes that later in the book she talks about the Streisand Effect, but never connects the two things…
I guess she could have named it herself…
Filed Under: barbra streisand, ken adelman, revisionist history, streisand effect
Comments on “Turns Out Barbra Streisand Is Aware Of The Streisand Effect, But Seems Confused About It”
Shoutout to Tanner Andrews, who replied, on May 23, 2023, to a comment made on August 28, 2005.
You know. In case the guy he’s replying to ever sees it.
Oh Babs… the facts aren’t something you can autotune.
Strange this became the streisand effect and not the kirby effect. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durward_Kirby)
Re:
That’s because the the kirby effect is already a thing and refers to something unrelated (named after Jack Kirby, a comic artist).
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Most Expensive Shoes
Your ability to dissect complex issues and make them accessible is pure gold. Plus, the humor woven into your writing makes even the most serious tech discussions a joy to read. It’s like learning tech from a friend who knows their stuff but doesn’t take themselves too seriously. Keep rocking those pixels, and I’ll be eagerly waiting for the next dose of TechDirt wisdom!
more information visit our website
https://newzproz.com/the-most-expensive-shoes-you-wish-you-could-own/
Streisception
So…If Streisand mentions Techdirt Streisand, would that cause an Inception moment? Hmm.
“photographing and displaying and identifying photographs of Ms. Streisand’s home”. Why was there a need to identify her home? That was the issue. You’re kind of an asshole.
...
Well, the bottom line is, it wasn’t necessary to identify Streisand’s name with her specific property. Streisand has received numerous threats throughout her career, most concerning from anti-Jewish groups. To my understanding, she has not sued anyone regarding a story about her, before or since, so she us hardly the type to just sue someone because she can. Her concern here was justified. The original publications of the photos did not need to identify who lives where. The term “the Streisand effect” is a childish one, and authors who use it, lose a lot of credibility in my eyes.