Mary Trump shared her theories after a series of incidents involving her uncle and female journalists
In the most recent incident Thursday, the president lashed out at a journalist who asked him about the D.C shooting suspect, asking if she was a “stupid person”.
Just one day before, Mary Trump had addressed her uncle’s previous run-ins with female reporters on her show, Mary Trump Live.
“His misogynistic attacks against reporters in particular are increasing and that means a couple of things,” she said. “It means that he’s increasingly comfortable lodging such attacks,” she continued, before reeling off a list of targeted groups. “There’s no hiding it anymore.”
The president’s niece also theorised that the sharp rebukes he delivers when questioned could be a sign that the pressure is getting to him in his second term.
It’s a misuse of the term. The Streisand Effect is when the rich or powerful try to supress something that no one knew about, calling greater attention to it.
The term was coined when Barbara Streisand tried to go after a guy for taking pictures of her home as part of a large aerial coastal photography project.
No one knew where her house was until she went after the guy, who also didn’t know. It blew up massively, and now anyone can see Barbara Streisand’s old house.
Do you think she’s the only wealthy person to go after a photographer for taking photos of her house? Or are they usually successful when they do?
The point of the Streisand Effect is the attempted suppression backfiring. The attempted suppression draws more attention than otherwise would have happened.
I think you’re missing that in your understanding.
Sure, as long as it’s understood to be a subset of the survivorship bias.
You’re still missing the point. The Streisand Effect describes a specific chain of events.
A rich or powerful person sees something that literally no one else has noticed, attempts to supress it, and by making the attempt, calls vastly greater attention to the item they were trying to suppress.
There’s no survivorship bias to it, because if any of those events are missing, then it’s not the Streisand Effect. It’s just attempted, or successful, suppression.
And again I say that the author of the linked article, also has a misunderstanding of the Streisand Effect.
I would love to see some scientific data or analysis of this. Until then, it’s an internet-described phenomenon and though it appears to make sense, can only be taken so seriously.
I don’t get why you need science for this, it’s a linguistic thing. It’s just the name for a particular situation, not a statement that certain things can be predicted from other things.
This whole thing is a chain of events that could happen, and, if it does, then this is called the Streisand Effect.
If any part of it doesn’t happen - if the person doesn’t fear the situation, or if they doesn’t make suppression attempts, or if the the suppression attempts actually work and the story dies, or if the suppression attempts don’t work but still no one much cares - then it’s just not the Streisand Effect.
Terming it an “effect” does seem to imply that it’s stating a meaningful prediction, that there is a serious liklihood of things progressing this way based on initial choices.
Think of it as kind of like the weather. There are multiple competing and cooperating underlying factors that combine to some actual weather result. One of those effects, left to its own devices, causes rain, but the existence of that effect doesn’t mean every scenario involving that factor will lead to rain, since other things could interfere.
Reddit page where people discuss this exact conversation.
Edit: I realize I basically start by saying the Streisand Effect shouldn’t primarily be thought of as a causative thing, and then later compare it to factors that affect the weather, themselves causative things.
The Streisand Effect is, basically: what happens when you try to suppress something, should news of that suppression lead to drawing much greater attention to the original thing than would otherwise have occured. “Congratulations, you played yourself.” It’s not prescriptive - attempts to suppress don’t inherently lead to the blowup. You could also think of it as the “Overcompensation Effect”, what happens when attempts at correction cause a new problem - though the Streisand Effect is very specifically not about the news of the cover up as an end, but as a means to the original story news blowing up.
Oftentimes, they are successful. There are certainly times when a wealthy person who tries this ends up failing in their attempt, but it doesn’t stand out much because there’s a certain level of rich-people-assholey that’s almost expected, where people will disapprove, but in an unsurprised way.
Streisand’s case was absurd to the highest degree, which was why it blew up. The photo wasn’t even of her house, but an aerial shot of the coast which also captured many other houses. Her house was just incidentally in the image, and even if you zoom in close enough to try see details of the house, the resolution is so low that I can’t fathom anyone genuinely believing it was an invasion of privacy.
What’s more, the purpose of the aerial photos was to document coastal erosion as research for policy making. Especially back in the early 2000s, I’d bet that the majority of photographers sued under invasion of privacy laws were paparazzi, and this is completely different circumstances. People found Streisand’s response offensive because she was obstructing a project that was for the public good. It’s likely that there were other people whose homes were included in photographs from this project who wouldn’t be keen on that prospect, but sucked it up because it’s not like they were actively trying to photograph people’s houses, and coastal erosion is a pretty big deal for people living on the coast.
Though I imagine most people would be unaware their homes were even captured. I remember that the photo in question had only been downloaded 6 times — two of those times were her attorneys.
Though actually I just learned that her beef was actually far more reasonable than I’d realised — unlike other homes that were labelled anonymously, with latitude and longitude coordinates, hers was labelled as belonging to her. Given the awfulness of paparazzi and stalkers, I actually think wanting her name off of it was reasonable. Since then, she’s made it clear that this was all she wanted, and one of the legal documents I just skimmed aligns with that. I can’t imagine why the photographer wouldn’t have just acquiesced to that request before it got all the way to court (by which point, he’d accrued $177k in legal fees). I wonder if perhaps the initial cease and desist sent to the photographer framed it more like a request to remove the photo entirely.