Follow TV Tropes

Discussion Main / StreisandEffect

Go To

Sep 1st 2019 at 12:08:08 PM •••

Would this page need to be split in two? It's getting a little long. We can divide it up into "Examples in Fiction" and "Real Life Examples" to make it easy.

Jun 1st 2017 at 1:38:50 PM •••

Would the popular use of Subliminal Seduction count (although if you think about it it's kind of an inversion as well)? At first, it was just a paranoid conspiracy theory using pseudoscience that has been discredited countless times, but over time real examples have shown up at first as a Take That! to the people who actually believed in that ,but later on it was used to hide actual hidden meanings although a lot less sinister than what the originators of the theory might expect.

Feb 22nd 2016 at 8:53:46 PM •••

  • Prince Daniel of Montenegro thought that the character of Count Danilo Danilovich in Lehar's The Merry Widow was based a little too closely on him; he sued for libel. He won, but was awarded a pittance in damages; so many people went to see the show to find out what all the fuss was about that Lehar made a profit, even after all the legal fees.

I haven't been able to turn up any mention elsewhere of this happening. Normally I might just shrug and move on, but I did find numerous mentions of an incident where the Prince successfully sued the 1925 film The Merry Widow (which has a different plot from Lehár's version, with a less sympathetic Danilo, and is much more upfront about being set in Montenegro), so I suspect that somebody's got their wires crossed somewhere. No word on whether the 1925 lawsuit resulted in the Streisand Effect.

Feb 6th 2015 at 6:29:34 AM •••

There's an example in New Media which mentions a woman in Wisconsin who tried to sue Yahoo! for defamation, etc but there's no name given. I have the name, but is there a deliberate reason why it isn't listed in the example?

Sep 18th 2014 at 3:55:20 PM •••

Fighteer, why do you remove the whole thing? If ZQ is that sensitive (the topic not the person) can we at least keep the rest of the GG stuff? You can't deny that's happening for better of worse.

Hide/Show Replies
Sep 18th 2014 at 4:18:29 PM •••

The problem is writing an entry that regardless of how we word the entry, it'll be Flame Bait.

If we side with either side, the other will be mad. If we stay neutral they both will be mad.

Personally, I agree that we should have something, but I'm not sure what we can write that won't cause lots of drama.

Sep 18th 2014 at 4:22:33 PM •••

And if we post "Gamergate, nuff said", the mods will be mad for bad entry style. *sigh* I hope this ends sometime soonish. It seems that when it has someone posts another inflammatory article.

Fighteer MOD
Sep 20th 2014 at 12:37:07 PM •••

It ends now. We aren't in the business of documenting Internet controversies. We care about tropes in media.

Sep 30th 2014 at 5:39:38 PM •••

Why is there a "New Media" segment on this page if "we" aren't in the business of documenting internet controversies? I find Fighteer's recent moderation highly characteristic of Streissand Effect.

(banned in 3...2...1...)

Oct 1st 2014 at 1:06:49 AM •••

Because most of them don't attract this drama. The Sonichu entry looks a bit like it's Creator Bashing, though - I would not mind losing that.

Aug 20th 2014 at 12:50:35 PM •••

It doesn't matter whether the allegations made against Zoe Quinn are true or not, what matters is there's proof of information suppression and it's causing it to spread further: textbook Streisand Effect. I could try to make the opening more neutral if that would help.

Hide/Show Replies
Aug 21st 2014 at 12:39:54 AM •••

This is the example in question:

  • The boyfriend of Zoe Quinn, developer of Depression Quest, posted that she had been cheating on him with several men, including three gaming journalists, creating a conflict of interest. Then mysterious media silence and thread deleting on multiple sites followed and at least one video received a copyright strike on You Tube. The resulting backlash from the supposed cover-up was more intense than the initial backlash. [1]

I personally don't like troping peoples' personal lives, this not being a celebrity rumour site after all.

Aug 21st 2014 at 7:06:57 AM •••

Septimus has said it better than me - my only contribution would be that since it is far from clear if her sleeping around A: happened, B: actually had any tangible effect on her coverage, and C: if she actually issued the DMCA takedown notices herself. Also: D: Quinn has been legitimately harassed, including having nude photos of herself spread around the internet. It makes me think this is a deliberate campaign, which it might not be good for TVT to participate in, however indirectly.

Edited by
Aug 21st 2014 at 10:24:48 AM •••

Well from what evidence we have, Quinn definitely had a relationship with at least one of the people mentioned but they maintain that was separate to their coverage. Official Statment from Kotaku It's not the personal lives aspect that has people in a state of rustled jimmies, it's that it could have had an effect on the industry. We should wait and see how it develops. We talked about how the British footballer's affair turned into an international debate but it hasn't got anywhere near that level yet.

Though on a different note, a game competition that Quinn spoke out against (reasons why are muddy and I don't wanna argue about that) suddenly got a lot of people from 4chan giving it funding so maybe that could go on the internet counterattack page some time.

Aug 21st 2014 at 2:19:08 PM •••

Mother of God... This thing is kinda huge, and I agree with Euan2000: this is a textbook Streisand Effect (the amount of information which was deleted is simply staggering, and I'm not even addressing the threats on each side of the spectrum). Still, it's probably best to wait a little until some light is shed on all of this. There are a lot of contradictory claims and misinformations.

Aug 24th 2014 at 4:30:24 AM •••

"Quinn has been legitimately harassed, including having nude photos of herself spread around the internet"


Edited by
Aug 24th 2014 at 2:17:55 PM •••

Bongobob, we have rules about civility. Screaming at people with capslock is a first-class ticket to banville, so please keep your temper in check.

Aug 24th 2014 at 3:21:18 PM •••

Not to mention that it's quite difficult to know what's true and what's not in this drama, and I'm not really sure we can find a trustworthy source of information. The only "hard facts" so far are the blog post from her ex-boyfriend, the massive censorship, and this official answer from Kotaku regarding the subject. I'm not convinced that things like the harassment, hacking and doxxing were faked (depends if you consider the sources that claim those things trustworthy or not - and I honestly don't know what to think, so I'm refraining from jumping to conclusions). Same thing for the nude pics (from where?... Nevermind, I don't want to know, but I'm raising the possibility of a fake account - though, well, if said account with nude pics existed way before this clusterfuck, I guess there's nothing more to say on the subject). And I'm not even talking about the alledged harassment she did at a wedding (Phil Fish's?). Talking about Phil Fish, his website Polygon was doxxed, with all his personal documents made public on the internet (/v/ claimed to not be responsible for that one, and even went further by stating that said doxxing should not have been possible in the first place due to a lot of inconsistencies, thus raising a LOT of questions). Overall, this story is a gigantic mess, and I really don't know what to think about all this...

Aug 24th 2014 at 3:39:43 PM •••

I say we leave what's on the page as is or slightly modified. There's now talk that Zoe is actually not her real name and she's part of a family that has a lot of business influence, which would explain a lot but that only confirms how messed up the whole affair is.

Aug 24th 2014 at 5:11:36 PM •••

A lot of people don't use real names online. It's a privacy thing.

Aug 25th 2014 at 2:18:59 AM •••

A lot of people don't put nudes of themselves online and act shocked when they're noticed, either.

Fighteer MOD
Aug 25th 2014 at 5:28:05 AM •••

There must be some way that we can have this article without turning into the geek version of Us Magazine. Consider this a warning.

Aug 25th 2014 at 12:29:08 PM •••

"Bongobob, we have rules about civility. Screaming at people with capslock is a first-class ticket to banville, so please keep your temper in check."

I like how you can't say I'm wrong, so you just tell me to be polite about being right.

Aug 25th 2014 at 2:47:45 PM •••

The one doesn't negate the other, really. You can still be right about something, while expressing it the wrong way. The warning stands. And there's really no need to get defensive.

Aug 25th 2014 at 2:49:39 PM •••

I'm not the one being defensive, and there is no wrong way to state the truth.

Aug 25th 2014 at 3:39:37 PM •••

Gentlemen, let's agree to disagree, and please move back to the actual subject.

Aug 25th 2014 at 4:22:31 PM •••

I don't see how having the Zoe incident categorized is any different from the Footballer having the affair and taking out the super-injunction. The focus shouldn't be on the initial event, but how the attempts to cover it up made it worse.

Aug 26th 2014 at 1:13:27 AM •••

This kind of online drama is a nuisance to work with. I personally would be inclined to hold off on adding anything from this story until it's blown over.

Also, for the record, we are a site about cataloguing tropes, not about exposing The Truth (by someone's opinion thereof). Also, The End Doesn't Justify The Means - posting in ALLCAPS is not good practice whatever the reason.

Sep 18th 2014 at 2:33:29 PM •••

I think this entry should be trimmed down, I think the person who posted this got some things wrong, the allegations of corruption in games journalism is not as shocking as most make it out to be, people were talking about the same crap back in 2012(when Dorito-gate happened and someone at a UK gaming magazine had his article removed due to threats of libel)I think the sickening responses to Quinn(someone actually called her father and told her she was a whore) are much more serious then all these nonsense accusations of Kotaku "censoring" stuff when there's very little proof they did anything of the sort.

Some of the moderating done by others was entirely reasonable given that it was mostly deleting rape and death threats.

Also I REALLY don't see why people are blathering on about her being from a rich family(even if that's even true at all, which i'm very much doubting at the moment), as if that somehow excuses all the terrible things that were done to her and makes them OK, the entry for Quinn both on here and on the Internet Counterattack page sound like they're dangerously close to condoning the threats against her because of the alleged "corruption" angle, and the last thing this place needs is that kind of negative publicity.

Sep 18th 2014 at 2:55:15 PM •••

There's multiple sources that the censoring on the Quinn topic was done overzealously, (i.e. that any and all mentions were removed including people asking what it was about). That in particular is what sparked the controversy. And her being from a rich family lead people to believe she was using previously unknown wealth to suppress what was going on while she had multiple crowd-funding programs going on.

I do think it should be trimmed down but more because the actual entry itself is a little bloated, not to remove the Quinn stuff.

Sep 18th 2014 at 3:28:59 PM •••

Also I highly doubt 4chan, Anon and Reddit care one bit about corruption in games journalism, I think they just like to make people lives miserable for shits and giggles.

There's very little proof Quinn used her "connections"(if that bit about her being rich is even true)to do anything like that, for all we know it was merely overzealous fans going overboard, but claiming that she was behind all of it just sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory and has very little credibility(plus you don't necessarily have to be rich to do that sort of thing anyways, so that's a tenuous connection at best).

Sep 18th 2014 at 3:50:43 PM •••

You're projecting your own prejudices now and I don't remember Anonymous getting involved. I can seek out and post sources if that helps (once I got full internet again). I remember one set of twitter posts where she invites a reddit admin into private chat before the mass banning started for one thing.

Sep 18th 2014 at 3:55:19 PM •••

Well if they weren't involved then why were they mentioned in the entry?

I'm not "projecting" anything, i'm merely trying to stop people from posting asinine theories that they can't back up with any real evidence.

Sep 18th 2014 at 3:56:30 PM •••

Again, I have some proof but I can't post it due to being on a phone.

Fighteer MOD
Sep 20th 2014 at 12:36:13 PM •••

We don't care about "proof". We care that this topic has turned into an Internet dick-waving contest, and as such it will be purged from our site. Anyone trying to raise the argument again will be suspended.

Feb 1st 2015 at 7:46:15 PM •••

"Purged from our site." "Anyone trying to raise the argument again will be suspended." TV Tropes sure got Orwellian.

Feb 2nd 2015 at 1:33:06 AM •••

Yes. There are things that are not worthwhile to host, and we keep such stuff as Obama's page around.

Jan 26th 2014 at 7:18:31 PM •••

If I may ask - what exactly was the problem with the page quote?

Hide/Show Replies
Telcontar MOD
Jan 27th 2014 at 1:39:51 AM •••

When a page starts with an italicized line like this one does, quotes often get in the way and make the page start with less punch.

Jul 25th 2013 at 1:07:18 AM •••

This page is now second in the Google search list after The Other Wiki's entry on it.

Oct 13th 2012 at 12:33:35 PM •••

Im just gonna ask here just to be safe: is there any reason at all that the trope namer, Barbra Streissand's appearance on South Park, isn't named here?

Hide/Show Replies
Sep 18th 2014 at 7:49:46 PM •••

It wasn't named for her appearence on South Park.

Jan 27th 2012 at 5:18:20 PM •••

Apparently there's some sort of silly edit war going on in this page. When that's over with, someone please add The Satanic Verses to Literature. It was selling a few hundred copies a week until the fatwa against Rushdie. Afterwards, it became so popular that it sold five times more copies than the #2 best-seller. It's still the publisher's best-selling book of all time.

May 17th 2010 at 12:14:26 PM •••

"Psychologists have done studies and found that the subjects' desire for any kind of potentially censorable material increased when the subjects were told that it was censored. The old Forbidden Fruit principle in action, in other words."

Does anyone know exactly where these studies were published? I want to use them for an academic source.

Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:


Media sources: