When an attempt to suppress information is what makes the information famous.
Mike Masnick, 2005 — writing about a different case entirely.
// Where it sits
The effect depends on the suppression attempt being visible. Which is why the quiet methods exist.
What it really means
The numbers on this one are almost too neat to be real.
Before the lawsuit, the photograph had been downloaded six times.
Two of those six were by the plaintiff's own attorneys.
After the lawsuit, over 420,000 people visited the site in a single month.
The image was one of 12,000 aerial photographs in a survey documenting California coastal erosion — a genuine environmental record, in which one frame happened to include a house. The suit sought $50 million. It was dismissed, and $177,000 in legal fees were awarded against the plaintiff.
So essentially the whole audience for that photograph — the 420,000 who came to the site afterwards — was created by the attempt to remove it. Six downloads to four hundred thousand, by way of a legal filing.
There are two details that complicate the story in ways worth keeping.
The first is that the objection, as later described in a memoir, was not to the photograph but to the name being attached to it, on security grounds. That is a more sympathetic complaint than the story usually allows — and it makes no difference to the outcome, which is the whole lesson. The Streisand effect does not care whether your objection is reasonable. It cares whether your objection is visible.
The second is that Mike Masnick, who named the effect in 2005, was writing about something else entirely — a resort's takedown notice against a photography website — and used the 2003 case as a reference point. The name is a citation, not a description of the case he was covering.
And the mechanism explains a whole category of modern behaviour. Suppression only backfires when it is seen. Which is precisely why the quiet methods — the ranked-down post, the muted reply, the account that still works but reaches nobody — exist at all.
Where it comes from
The naming is slightly unfair in a specific way: the writer who coined it was describing an entirely different case at the time, and merely used the 2003 lawsuit as a reference point.
Myths & misconceptions
The photo was already circulating widely.
It had been downloaded SIX TIMES before the suit — and two of those were by the plaintiff's own attorneys. After the suit, over 420,000 people visited the site in a single month. The suppression attempt is responsible for essentially all of the attention.
The objection was to the photograph existing.
In a later memoir the objection is described as being to the NAME being attached to the image, on security grounds — not to the aerial photograph itself, which was one of 12,000 documenting coastal erosion.
Compare & contrast
Streisand effect vs the backfire effect
The backfire effect is about beliefs hardening under contradiction. The Streisand effect is about attention spreading under suppression. One is psychological; the other is logistical — and the logistical one is far better evidenced.
| // | Streisand effect | Backfire effect |
|---|---|---|
| Concerns | Attention | Belief |
| Mechanism | Distribution | Psychology |
| Well evidenced | Yes | Contested |
| Triggered by | Suppression | Correction |
How it connects
- Shadowbanthe suppression method designed specifically to avoid this effect.
- Milkshake Duckthe other named pattern where attention produces the reverse of the intention.
Tell it apart
Questions people ask
- Who named it?
- Mike Masnick, in 2005 — and he was writing about a resort's takedown notice against a photography site at the time, not about the 2003 case. The name is a reference, not a description of the case he was covering.
- How much was the lawsuit for?
- $50 million. It was dismissed, and $177,000 in legal fees were awarded against the plaintiff.
- What was the photo?
- One image out of 12,000 in an aerial survey documenting California coastal erosion. It happened to include a house.