Follow TV Tropes
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
It ends now. We aren't in the business of documenting Internet controversies. We care about tropes in media.
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...)
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.
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.
This is the example in question:
I personally don't like troping peoples' personal lives, this not being a celebrity rumour site after all.
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.
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.
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.
"Quinn has been legitimately harassed, including having nude photos of herself spread around the internet"
PICTURES THAT SHE HERSELF PUT OUT ON THE INTERNET IN PUBLIC VIEW.
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.
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...
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.
A lot of people don't use real names online. It's a privacy thing.
A lot of people don't put nudes of themselves online and act shocked when they're noticed, either.
There must be some way that we can have this article without turning into the geek version of Us Magazine. Consider this a warning.
"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.
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.
I'm not the one being defensive, and there is no wrong way to state the truth.
Gentlemen, let's agree to disagree, and please move back to the actual subject.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Again, I have some proof but I can't post it due to being on a phone.
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.
"Purged from our site." "Anyone trying to raise the argument again will be suspended." TV Tropes sure got Orwellian.
Yes. There are things that are not worthwhile to host, and we keep such stuff as Obama's page around.
If I may ask - what exactly was the problem with the page quote?
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.
This page is now second in the Google search list after The Other Wiki's entry on it.
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?
It wasn't named for her appearence on South Park.
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.
"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.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?