:Streisand effect

{{Short description|Increased awareness of something after suppression efforts}}

{{Pp-move}}{{about|an unintended consequence of attempting to suppress information|the Atlanta episode|The Streisand Effect (Atlanta){{!}}The Streisand Effect (Atlanta)}}

File:Streisand Estate.jpg, which she attempted to suppress in 2003]]

The Streisand effect is an unintended consequence of attempts to hide, remove, or censor information, where the effort instead increases public awareness of the information.

The term was coined by Mike Masnick after Barbra Streisand attempted in 2003 to suppress the publication of a photograph showing her clifftop residence in Malibu, taken to document coastal erosion in California, inadvertently drawing far greater attention to the previously obscure photograph.{{cite news |last1=Burnett |first1=Dean |date=May 22, 2015 |title=Why government censorship [in no way at all] carries greater risks than benefits |url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2015/may/22/government-censorship-psychology-theresa-may |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160424061616/https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2015/may/22/government-censorship-psychology-theresa-may |archive-date=April 24, 2016 |access-date=April 16, 2016 |work=The Guardian |location=London}}{{Cite journal |last=Canton |first=David |date=November 5, 2005 |title=Today's Business Law: Attempt to suppress can backfire |url=http://www.lfpress.ca/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=111404&x=articles&s=shopping |url-status=dead |journal=The London Free Press |archive-url=https://archive.today/20070927014240/http://www.lfpress.ca/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=111404&x=articles&s=shopping |archive-date=September 27, 2007 |access-date=July 21, 2007 |quote=The 'Streisand effect' is what happens when someone tries to suppress something and the opposite occurs. The act of suppressing it raises the profile, making it much more well known than it ever would have been.}}{{cite news |last=Mugrabi |first=Sunshine |date=January 22, 2007 |title=YouTube – Censored? Offending Paula Abdul clips are abruptly taken down. |url=http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=20872&hed=YouTube%E2%80%94Censored%3F |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20070218200850/http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=20872&hed=YouTube%E2%80%94Censored%3F |archive-date=February 18, 2007 |access-date=July 21, 2007 |work=Red Herring |quote=Another unintended consequence of this move could be that it extends the kerfuffle over Ms. Abdul's behavior rather than addressing it. Mr. Nguyen called this the 'Barbra Streisand effect', referring to that actress's insistence that paparazzi photos of her mansion not be used}}

Mechanism

Attempts to suppress information are often made through cease-and-desist letters, but instead of being suppressed, the information sometimes receives extensive publicity, as well as the creation of media such as videos and spoof songs, which can be mirrored on the Internet or distributed on file-sharing networks.{{Cite journal |last=Canton |first=David |url=http://www.lfpress.ca/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=111404&x=articles&s=shopping |archive-url=https://archive.today/20070927014240/http://www.lfpress.ca/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=111404&x=articles&s=shopping |url-status=dead |archive-date=September 27, 2007 |title=Today's Business Law: Attempt to suppress can backfire |journal=The London Free Press |date=November 5, 2005 |access-date=July 21, 2007 |quote=The 'Streisand effect' is what happens when someone tries to suppress something and the opposite occurs. The act of suppressing it raises the profile, making it much more well known than it ever would have been.}}{{cite news |url=http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=20872&hed=YouTube%E2%80%94Censored%3F |title=YouTube – Censored? Offending Paula Abdul clips are abruptly taken down. |last=Mugrabi |first=Sunshine |date=January 22, 2007 |work=Red Herring |access-date=July 21, 2007 |quote=Another unintended consequence of this move could be that it extends the kerfuffle over Ms. Abdul's behavior rather than quelling it. Mr. Nguyen called this the 'Barbra Streisand effect', referring to that actress's insistence that paparazzi photos of her mansion not be used |archive-url=https://archive.today/20070218200850/http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=20872&hed=YouTube%E2%80%94Censored%3F |archive-date=February 18, 2007 |url-status=dead}} In addition, seeking or obtaining an injunction to prohibit something from being published or to remove something that is already published can lead to increased publicity of the published work.

The Streisand effect is an example of psychological reactance, wherein once people are aware that some information is being kept from them, they are significantly more motivated to acquire and spread it.{{cite news |last1=Burnett |first1=Dean |title=Why government censorship [in no way at all] carries greater risks than benefits |url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2015/may/22/government-censorship-psychology-theresa-may |access-date=April 16, 2016 |work=The Guardian |location=London |date=May 22, 2015 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160424061616/https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2015/may/22/government-censorship-psychology-theresa-may |archive-date=April 24, 2016}}

The Streisand effect has been observed in relation to the right to be forgotten, the right in some jurisdictions to have private information about a person removed from internet searches and other directories under some circumstances, as a litigant attempting to remove information from search engines risks the litigation itself being reported as valid, current news.{{cite journal |last1=Kocharyan |first1=Hovsep |last2=Hamuľák |first2=Ondrej |last3=Vardanyan |first3=Lusine |title=“The Right to be Remembered?”: The Contemporary Challenges of the “Streisand Effect” in the European Judicial Reality |journal=International and Comparative Law Review |date=1 December 2022 |volume=22 |issue=2 |pages=105–120 |doi=10.2478/iclr-2022-0017}} {{cite web |url=http://recombu.com/digital/news/google-creates-streisand-effect-bbc-mail-guardian |title=Google's right to be forgotten creates Streisand effect |work=Recombu |date=July 3, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141208035842/http://recombu.com/digital/news/google-creates-streisand-effect-bbc-mail-guardian |archive-date=December 8, 2014}}{{cite web |url=http://www.bdlive.co.za/life/gadgets/2014/07/23/techno-file-exercising-right-to-be-forgotten-could-spark-streisand-effect |title=Techno File: Exercising 'right to be forgotten' could spark 'Streisand effect' |publisher=BDlive |date=July 23, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140725171521/http://www.bdlive.co.za/life/gadgets/2014/07/23/techno-file-exercising-right-to-be-forgotten-could-spark-streisand-effect |archive-date=July 25, 2014}}{{cite journal |last1=Mach |first1=Martin |title=Streisand Effect in the Context of the Right to be Forgotten |journal=European Studies |date=1 August 2022 |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=110–121 |doi=10.2478/eustu-2022-0005}}{{cite journal |last1=Vardanyan |first1=Lusine |last2=Kocharyan |first2=Hovsep |last3=Hamulák |first3=Ondrej |last4=Mesarčík |first4=Matúš |last5=Kerikmäe |first5=Tanel |last6=Kookmaa |first6=Tea |title=The Unwanted Paradoxes Of the Right to Be Forgotten |journal=Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology |date=30 June 2023 |volume=17 |issue=1 |pages=87–109 |doi=10.5817/MUJLT2023-1-3}}

The phenomenon is well-known in Chinese culture, expressed by the {{transliteration|zh|chengyu}} "wishing to cover, more conspicuous" ({{lang|zh|欲蓋彌彰}}, {{lang-zh|hp=Yù gài mí zhāng}}).{{cite news|title=史翠珊與潘朵拉效應欲蓋彌彰愈蓋愈彰|date=August 8, 2020|language=zh|publisher=eDigest|accessdate=July 25, 2022|url=https://www.edigest.hk/%e6%8a%95%e8%b3%87/%e5%8f%b2%e7%bf%a0%e7%8f%8a-%e8%88%87-%e6%bd%98%e6%9c%b5%e6%8b%89%e6%95%88%e6%87%89-%e6%ac%b2%e8%93%8b%e5%bd%8c%e5%bd%b0%e6%84%88%e8%93%8b%e6%84%88%e5%bd%b0-173336/}}

Origin

File:Barbra Streisand with Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci (27806589237) (cropped).jpg]]

In 2003, the American singer and actress Barbra Streisand sued the photographer Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for US$50 million for violation of privacy.{{cite web |last1=Byrne |first1=Suzy |date=November 6, 2023 |title=Yahoo Celebrity {{mdash}} What is 'the Streisand effect'? Barbra Streisand addresses infamous invasion of privacy lawsuit in new memoir. |url=https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/streisand-effect-barbra-streisand-invasion-of-privacy-lawsuit-new-memoir-130024264.html |publisher=Yahoo Entertainment |via=Yahoo! |quote="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." |authorlink1=}}{{cite court |litigants=Barbara Streisand v. Kenneth Adelman Et. Al. |vol= |reporter=Cal.Super. |opinion= |pinpoint= |court=Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles |date=May 20, 2003 |url=https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2zd3hv14c/superior-court-of-california-county-of-los-angeles/barbara-streisand-vs-kenneth-adelman-et-al/ |postscript=No. SC077257}}{{cite news |last=Parkinson |first=Justin |date=July 31, 2014 |title=The perils of the Streisand Effect |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28562156 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160113013559/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28562156 |archive-date=January 13, 2016 |work=BBC |publisher=}} The lawsuit sought to remove "Image 3850", an aerial photograph in which Streisand's mansion was visible, from the publicly available California Coastal Records Project of 12,000 California coastline photographs. As the project's goal was to document coastal erosion to influence government policymakers, privacy concerns of homeowners were deemed to be of minor or no importance.{{Cite journal |last=Li |first=Charlene |date=2010-06-22 |title=Groundswell. Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies |url=https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/sd.2010.05626hae.002/full/html |journal=Strategic Direction |language=en |volume=26 |issue=8 |doi=10.1108/sd.2010.05626hae.002 |issn=0258-0543}}{{cite news |last=Masnick |first=Mike |date=January 5, 2005 |title=Since When Is It Illegal to Just Mention a Trademark Online? |url=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050105/0132239.shtml |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121130130914/http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050105/0132239.shtml |archive-date=November 30, 2012 |work=Techdirt}}{{cite web |url=http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/barbra-sues-over-aerial-photos |title=Barbra Sues Over Aerial Photos |access-date=November 22, 2010 |date=May 30, 2003 |work=The Smoking Gun |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110417185401/http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/barbra-sues-over-aerial-photos |archive-date=April 17, 2011}}{{Cite web |url=https://www.californiacoastline.org/streisand/lawsuit.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080407234728/http://www.californiacoastline.org/streisand/lawsuit.html |url-status=dead |title=California Coastal Records Project |archive-date=April 7, 2008 |website=californiacoastline.org}} The lawsuit was dismissed and Streisand was ordered to pay Adelman's $177,000 legal attorney fees.Streisand v. Adelman, et al., in California Superior Court; Case SC077257{{cite web |last=Adelman |first=Kenneth |title=Barbra Streisand Sues to Suppress Free Speech Protection for Widely Acclaimed Website |url=http://www.californiacoastline.org/streisand/lawsuit.html |publisher=California Coastal Records Project |date=May 13, 2007 |access-date=April 8, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080407234728/http://www.californiacoastline.org/streisand/lawsuit.html |archive-date=April 7, 2008 |url-status=live}}{{cite press release |title=Streisand's Lawsuit to Silence Coastal Website Dismissed |url=http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Barbra-Streisand-Coastal3dec03.htm |publisher=Mindfully.org |date=December 3, 2003 |access-date=April 8, 2008 |archive-url=http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090706034700/http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Barbra-Streisand-Coastal3dec03.htm |archive-date=July 6, 2009 |url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-may-28-me-barbra28-story.html|title=Judge Orders Streisand to Pay $177,000 for Photographer's Legal Fees|last=Weiss|first=Kenneth|newspaper=Los Angeles Times |date=May 28, 2004|access-date=August 16, 2022}} "Image 3850" had been downloaded only six times prior to Streisand's lawsuit, two of those being by Streisand's attorneys;{{cite web |url=http://www.californiacoastline.org/streisand/slapp-ruling-tentative.pdf |title=Barbara Streisand vs. Kenneth Adelman, Ruling on submitted matters, tentative decision and proposed statement of decision |access-date=September 24, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150824073334/http://www.californiacoastline.org/streisand/slapp-ruling-tentative.pdf |archive-date=August 24, 2015|page=6|quote=Image 3850 was downloaded six times, twice to the Internet address of counsel for plaintiff}} In addition, two prints of the picture were ordered—one by Streisand's counsel and one by Streisand's neighbor. public awareness of the case led to more than 420,000 people visiting the site over the following month.{{cite web |url=http://www.californiacoastline.org/news/sjmerc5.html |title=Photo of Streisand home becomes an Internet hit |access-date=June 15, 2007 |last=Rogers |first=Paul |date=June 24, 2003 |work=San Jose Mercury News, mirrored at californiacoastline.org |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130730212219/http://www.californiacoastline.org/news/sjmerc5.html |archive-date=July 30, 2013}}

Two years later, Mike Masnick of Techdirt named the effect after the Streisand incident when writing about Marco Beach Ocean Resort's takedown notice to urinal.net (a site dedicated to photographs of urinals) over its use of the resort's name.{{cite web |url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87809195 |title=The Streisand Effect' Snags Effort to Hide Documents |work=All Things Considered|publisher=NPR |date=February 29, 2008 |first=Robert |last=Siegel|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180306072519/https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87809195 |archive-date=March 6, 2018}}{{cite news |last1=Masnick |first1=Mike |title=For 10 Years Everyone's Been Using 'The Streisand Effect' Without Paying; Now I'm Going To Start Issuing Takedowns |url=https://www.techdirt.com/2015/01/08/10-years-everyones-been-using-streisand-effect-without-paying-now-im-going-to-start-issuing-takedowns/ |access-date=April 16, 2016 |work=Techdirt |date=January 8, 2015 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220301170557/https://www.techdirt.com/2015/01/08/10-years-everyones-been-using-streisand-effect-without-paying-now-im-going-to-start-issuing-takedowns/ |archive-date=March 1, 2022}}

{{Blockquote|text=How long is it going to take before lawyers realize that the simple act of trying to repress something they don't like online is likely to make it so that something that most people would never, ever see (like a photo of a urinal in some random beach resort) is now seen by many more people? Let's call it the Streisand Effect.|author=Mike Masnick|title="Since When Is It Illegal To Just Mention A Trademark Online?"|source=Techdirt (January 5, 2005){{cite web|url=https://www.techdirt.com/2005/01/05/since-when-is-it-illegal-to-just-mention-a-trademark-online/|title=Since When Is It Illegal To Just Mention A Trademark Online? |date=January 5, 2005|last1=Masnick |first1=Mike}}}}

= Streisand's perspective =

In her 2023 autobiography My Name Is Barbra, Streisand, citing security problems with intruders, wrote:{{cite book |last1=Streisand |first1=Barbra |title=My Name Is Barbra |date=2023 |publisher=Viking |location=US & UK |isbn=9781529136890 |pages=906–907 }}

My issue was never with the photo ... it was only about the use of my name attached to the photo. I felt I was standing up for a principle, but in retrospect, it was a mistake. I also assumed that my lawyer had done exactly as I wished and simply asked to take my name off the photo.

According to Vanity Fair, "she... didn't want her name to be publicized with [the photo], for security reasons."{{cite magazine |last=Jones |first=Radhika |url=https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/10/barbra-streisand-cover-story |title=Malibu Barbra: Inside Barbra Streisand's World |magazine=Vanity Fair |date=October 7, 2023 |access-date=October 14, 2024}} Since the controversy, Streisand has published numerous detailed photos of the property on social media and in her 2010 book, My Passion For Design.

Examples

=In politics and government=

File:Base militaire de Pierre-sur-Haute.jpg tried to delete Wikipedia's article about the military radio station of Pierre-sur-Haute, the article became the French Wikipedia's most-viewed page.]]The French intelligence agency DCRI's attempt to delete the French Wikipedia article about the military radio station of Pierre-sur-HauteCommuniqué from the Wikimedia Foundation, April 6, 2013 resulted in the restored article temporarily becoming the most-viewed page on the French Wikipedia.{{cite news |last=Geuss |first=Megan |work=Ars Technica |title=Wikipedia editor allegedly forced by French intelligence to delete "classified" entry |url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/wikipedia-editor-allegedly-forced-by-french-intelligence-to-delete-classified-entry/ |access-date=April 6, 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/20130408234303/https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/wikipedia-editor-allegedly-forced-by-french-intelligence-to-delete-classified-entry/ |archive-date=April 8, 2013}}

In October 2020, the New York Post published emails from a laptop owned by Hunter Biden, the son of then Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, detailing an alleged corruption scheme.{{Cite web |last1=Morris |first1=Emma-Jo |last2=Fonrouge |first2=Gabrielle |date=October 14, 2020 |title=Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad |url=https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/ |access-date=October 20, 2020 |website=New York Post|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201014115516/https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/|archivedate=October 14, 2020}} After internal discussion that debated whether the story may have originated from Russian misinformation and propaganda, Twitter blocked the story from their platform and locked the accounts of those who shared a link to the article, including the New York Post{{'s}} own Twitter account, and White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, among others.{{cite news |last=Rushe |first=Dominic |date=October 26, 2017 |title=Twitter bans ads from RT and Sputnik over election interference |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/26/twitter-bans-ads-from-russia-today-and-sputnik-over-election-interference |access-date=April 14, 2022 |work=The Guardian |quote=Company announced decision following US intelligence community's conclusion that Russian media outlets sought to interfere with the US election}} Researchers at MIT cited the increase of 5,500 shares every 15 minutes to about 10,000 shares shortly after Twitter censored the story, as evidence of the Streisand Effect nearly doubling the attention the story received.{{Cite magazine |title=Twitter's ban almost doubled attention for Biden misinformation |url=https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/10/16/1010644/twitter-ban-hunter-biden-emails-backfires/ |last=Ohlheiser |first=Abby |date=October 16, 2020 |access-date=October 20, 2020 |magazine=MIT Technology Review}} Twitter removed the ban the following day.

=By businesses=

In April 2007, a group of companies that used Advanced Access Content System (AACS) encryption issued cease-and-desist letters demanding that the system's 128-bit (16-byte) numerical key (represented in hexadecimal as {{code|09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0}}) be removed from several high-profile websites, including Digg. With the numerical key and some software, it was possible to decrypt the video content on HD DVDs. This led to the key's proliferation across other sites and chat rooms in various formats, with one commentator describing it as having become "the most famous number on the Internet".{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/technology/03code.html |newspaper=The New York Times |quote="The ironic thing is, because they tried to quiet it down it's the most famous number on the Internet." |first=Brad |last=Stone |date=May 3, 2007 |title=In Web Uproar, Antipiracy Code Spreads Wildly |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081211105021/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/technology/03code.html |archive-date=December 11, 2008}} Within a month, the key had been reprinted on over 280,000 pages, printed on T-shirts and tattoos, published as a book, and appeared on YouTube in a song played over 800,000 times.{{cite news |url=https://www.forbes.com/home/technology/2007/05/10/streisand-digg-web-tech-cx_ag_0511streisand.html |title=The Streisand Effect |date=May 11, 2007 |access-date=February 29, 2008 |first=Andy |last=Greenberg |work=Forbes |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080307025538/http://www.forbes.com/home/technology/2007/05/10/streisand-digg-web-tech-cx_ag_0511streisand.html |archive-date=March 7, 2008}}

In September 2009, multi-national oil company Trafigura obtained in a British court a super-injunction to prevent The Guardian newspaper from reporting on an internal Trafigura investigation into the 2006 Ivory Coast toxic waste dump scandal. A super-injunction prevents reporting on even the existence of the injunction. Using parliamentary privilege, Labour MP Paul Farrelly referred to the super-injunction in a parliamentary question and on October 12, 2009, The Guardian reported that it had been gagged from reporting on the parliamentary question, in violation of the Bill of Rights 1689.{{cite news |first=David |last=Leigh |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament |title=Guardian gagged from reporting parliament |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London |date=October 12, 2009 |access-date=May 21, 2011 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131005045156/http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament |archive-date=October 5, 2013}}{{cite news |first=David |last=Leigh |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/oct/13/guardian-court-parliament-reporting-gag |title=Guardian seeks urgent court hearing over parliament reporting gag |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London |date=October 13, 2009 |access-date=May 21, 2011 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131005145157/http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/oct/13/guardian-court-parliament-reporting-gag |archive-date=October 5, 2013}}{{cite news |author=Aditya Chakrabortty |title=Brain food: Internet censorship and the Barbra Streisand effect |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/20/brain-food-internet-censorship-barbra-streisand |date=October 19, 2009 |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London}} Blogger Richard Wilson correctly identified the blocked question as referring to the Trafigura waste dump scandal, after which The Spectator suggested the same. Not long after, Trafigura began trending on Twitter, helped along by Stephen Fry's retweeting the story to his followers.{{cite web |last=Jacobson |first=Seth |url=http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/54667,business,twitter-claims-another-scalp-as-trafigura-backs-down |title=Twitter claims new scalp as Trafigura backs down |work=The First Post |access-date=May 21, 2011 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100828075707/http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/54667,business,twitter-claims-another-scalp-as-trafigura-backs-down |archive-date=August 28, 2010}} Twitter users soon tracked down all details of the case, and by October 16, the super-injunction had been lifted and the report published.{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6350262/Secret-Trafigura-report-said-likely-cause-of-illness-was-release-of-toxic-gas-from-dumped-waste.html |title=Secret Trafigura report said 'likely cause' of illness was release of toxic gas from dumped waste |newspaper=The Telegraph |location=London |first1=Martin |last1=Beckford |first2=Holly |last2=Watt |date=October 16, 2009 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170731174349/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6350262/Secret-Trafigura-report-said-likely-cause-of-illness-was-release-of-toxic-gas-from-dumped-waste.html |archive-date=July 31, 2017}}

On 11 March 2025, the book Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism by Sarah Wynn-Williams was published. It details the author’s experiences working at Facebook (now Meta) and explores the company’s internal culture, decision-making processes, and role in reshaping global events. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg responded by seeking relief at the Emergency International Arbitral Tribunal, which enjoined Wynn-Williams "from making orally, in writing, or otherwise any disparaging, critical or otherwise detrimental comments to any person or entity concerning [Meta], its officers, directors, or employees".{{cite news| last1 = Naughton | first1 = John| title = Whistleblower's exposé of the cult of Zuckerberg reveals peril of power-crazy tech bros| date = 15 March 2025| work = The Guardian| location = London, United Kingdom| issn = 0029-7712| url = https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/15/whistleblowers-cult-zuckerberg-power-tech-bros| access-date = 2025-03-15}}{{cite news| last1 = Isaac | first1 = Mike| title = Meta seeks to block further sales of ex-employee's scathing memoir| language = en-US| date = 13 March 2025| work = The New York Times| location = New York, USA| issn = 0362-4331| url = https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/12/technology/meta-book-sales-blocked.html| access-date = 2025-03-16}} Macmillan, the UK publisher, later issued a statement saying that it would ignore the ruling. The book reached number one on the New York Times bestseller list by 20 March 2025.{{cite news| last1 = Creamer | first1 = Ella| title = Meta exposé tops bestseller chart despite company's attempt to ban its promotion| date = 20 March 2025| work = The Guardian| location = London, United Kingdom| issn = 0261-3077| url = https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/mar/20/meta-expose-tops-bestseller-chart-despite-companys-attempt-to-ban-its-promotion| access-date = 2025-03-21}} Meta described the book as "a mix of out-of-date and previously reported claims about the company and false accusations about [its] executives".

=By other organizations=

In January 2008, the Church of Scientology's attempts to get Internet websites to delete a video of Tom Cruise speaking about Scientology resulted in the creation of the protest movement Project Chanology.{{Cite news |last=Cacciottolo |first=Mario |date=2012-06-15 |title=The Streisand Effect: When censorship backfires |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-18458567 |access-date=2025-01-03 |work=BBC News |language=en-GB}}{{cite news |url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/miloyiannopoulos/8248311/What_is_The_Streisand_Effect/ |work=The Daily Telegraph |location=London |date=January 31, 2009 |access-date=March 31, 2010 |title=What is 'The Streisand Effect'? |url-status=dead |archive-url=http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/20110608133028/http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/miloyiannopoulos/8248311/What_is_The_Streisand_Effect/ |archive-date=June 8, 2011}}

On December 5, 2008, the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) added the English Wikipedia article about the 1976 Scorpions album Virgin Killer to a child pornography blacklist, considering the album's cover art "a potentially illegal indecent image of a child under the age of 18".{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/mar/20/streisand-effect-internet-law |work=The Guardian |location=London |title=The Streisand effect: Secrecy in the digital age |first=Charles |last=Arthur |date=March 20, 2009 |access-date=March 31, 2010 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130906071208/http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/mar/20/streisand-effect-internet-law |archive-date=September 6, 2013}} The article quickly became one of the most popular pages on the site,{{cite web |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/07/brit_isps_censor_wikipedia/ |title=Brit ISPs censor Wikipedia over 'child porn' album cover |date=December 7, 2008 |access-date=December 9, 2008 |first=Cade |last=Metz |work=The Register |url-status=live |archive-url=http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/20110608133030/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/07/brit_isps_censor_wikipedia/ |archive-date=June 8, 2011}} and the publicity surrounding the IWF action resulted in the image being spread across other sites.{{cite news |url=https://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web/wikipedia-added-to-child-pornography-blacklist/2008/12/08/1228584723764.html |title=Wikipedia added to child pornography blacklist |last=Moses |first=Asher |date=December 8, 2008 |work=The Sydney Morning Herald |access-date=December 9, 2008 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121103174513/http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web/wikipedia-added-to-child-pornography-blacklist/2008/12/08/1228584723764.html |archive-date=November 3, 2012}}

The IWF was later reported on the BBC News website to have said "IWF's overriding objective is to minimise the availability of indecent images of children on the Internet, however, on this occasion our efforts have had the opposite effect".{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7774102.stm |title=IWF backs down on Wiki censorship |date=December 9, 2008 |access-date=December 9, 2008 |work=BBC News |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081211033923/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7774102.stm |archive-date=December 11, 2008}} This effect was also noted by the IWF in its statement about the removal of the URL from the blacklist.{{cite web |last=Morozov |first=Evgeny |author-link=Evgeny Morozov |date=December 26, 2008 |title=Living with the Streisand Effect |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/26/opinion/26iht-edmorozov.1.18937733.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120907074501/http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/26/opinion/26iht-edmorozov.1.18937733.html |archive-date=September 7, 2012 |access-date=December 29, 2008 |work=The New York Times}}{{cite press release |url=http://www.iwf.org.uk/about-iwf/news/post/251-iwf-statement-regarding-wikipedia-webpage |title=IWF statement regarding Wikipedia webpage |date=December 9, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110101075354/http://www.iwf.org.uk/about-iwf/news/post/251-iwf-statement-regarding-wikipedia-webpage |archive-date=January 1, 2011 |access-date=September 24, 2013 |publisher=Internet Watch Foundation}}

=By individuals=

In May 2011, Premier League footballer Ryan Giggs sued Twitter after a user revealed that Giggs was the subject of an anonymous privacy injunction (informally referred to as a "super-injunction"){{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/may/20/lord-neuberger-report-superinjunction-hysteria |title=Lord Neuberger's report cuts through the superinjunction hysteria |last=Townend |first=Judith |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London |date=May 20, 2011 |access-date=May 21, 2011 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131222093235/http://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/may/20/lord-neuberger-report-superinjunction-hysteria |archive-date=December 22, 2013}} that prevented the publication of details regarding an alleged affair with model and former Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas.

A blogger for the Forbes website observed that the British media, which were banned from breaking the terms of the injunction, had mocked the footballer for not understanding the effect.{{cite news |last=Hill |first=Kashmir |url=https://blogs.forbes.com/kashmirhill/2011/05/20/he-who-cannot-be-named-in-the-uk-sues-twitter-over-a-user-naming-him/ |title=He-Who-Cannot-Be-Named (In The UK) Sues Twitter Over A User Naming Him |work=Forbes |date=September 30, 2009 |access-date=May 21, 2011 |quote=Apparently, though, CTB's lawyers have not heard of the "Streisand effect". |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110522074451/http://blogs.forbes.com/kashmirhill/2011/05/20/he-who-cannot-be-named-in-the-uk-sues-twitter-over-a-user-naming-him/ |archive-date=May 22, 2011}} Dan Sabbagh from The Guardian subsequently posted a graph detailing—without naming the player—the number of references to the player's name against time, showing a large spike following the news that the player was seeking legal action.{{cite news |title=Twitter and the mystery footballer |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/organgrinder/2011/may/20/twitter-superinjunctions |first=Dan |last=Sabbagh |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London |date=May 20, 2011 |access-date=May 24, 2011 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141221182008/http://www.theguardian.com/technology/organgrinder/2011/may/20/twitter-superinjunctions |archive-date=December 21, 2014}}

In 2013, a BuzzFeed article showcasing photos from the Super Bowl contained several photos of Beyoncé making unflattering poses and faces, resulting in her publicist contacting BuzzFeed via email and requesting the removal of the images.{{Cite web |last= |date=2013-02-05 |title=The 'Unflattering' Photos Beyoncé's Publicist Doesn't Want You To See |url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedceleb/the-unflattering-photos-beyonces-publicist-doesnt-want-you-t |access-date=2024-08-21 |website=BuzzFeed |language=en}} In response to the email, BuzzFeed republished the images, which subsequently became much more well-known across the internet.{{Cite web |last=Parkinson |first=Justin |date=July 30, 2014 |title=The perils of the Streisand effect |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28562156 |website=BBC}}

In December 2022, Twitter CEO Elon Musk banned the Twitter account @elonjet, a bot that reported his private jet's movements based on public domain flight data,{{cite news|title=Twitter changes rules over account tracking Elon Musk's jet|url=https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-technology-business-social-media-13119e8cc9bbc15a886369263b29087a|last=O'Brien|first=Matt|publisher=Associated Press|date=December 14, 2022|access-date=December 17, 2022}} citing concerns about his family's safety.{{cite web|title=Elon Musk's Jet and 'Crazy Stalker' Allegations, Explained|url=https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/12/16/elon-musk-jet-stalker/|publisher=Snopes|date=December 17, 2022|access-date=January 7, 2023}} The ban drew further media coverage and public attention to Musk's comments on allowing free speech across the Twitter platform.{{cite magazine |magazine=Newsweek |date=December 16, 2022 |first=Ryan |last=Smith |title=What Is Streisand Effect? Elon Musk Alludes to Phenomenon Amid Twitter Bans |url=https://www.newsweek.com/streisand-effect-elon-musk-twitter-bans-1767701}}{{Cite news |last1=Reimann |first1=Nicholas |last2=Hart |first2=Robert |date=December 15, 2022 |title=Twitter Suspends Accounts For Rival Mastodon And Several High-Profile Journalists |work=Forbes |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2022/12/15/twitter-suspends-accounts-for-rival-mastodon-and-several-high-profile-journalists/?sh=2aa855db52ba |access-date=January 2, 2023}} Musk received further criticism after banning several journalists who had referred to the "ElonJet" account or been critical of Musk in the past.{{cite news|title=Twitter Suspends Accounts of Half a Dozen Journalists|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/15/technology/twitter-suspends-journalist-accounts-elon-musk.html|last1=Isaac|first1=Mike|last2=Conger|first2=Kate|work=The New York Times|date=December 15, 2022|access-date=December 17, 2022|url-access=limited}}

In November 2024, Canadian rapper Drake filed a lawsuit against Universal Music Group over the popular Kendrick Lamar song "Not Like Us" which is a diss track against Drake. The lawsuit has been described by music industry insiders as having a Streisand effect since in the wake of the lawsuit, the song's sales have increased by 440% and it has also surged back up in several charts.{{cite web|url=https://balleralert.com/profiles/blogs/drakes-umg-lawsuit-backfires-as-kendrick-lamars-not-like-us-sees-surge/|title=Drake's UMG Lawsuit Backfires as Kendrick Lamar's "Not Like Us" Sees 440% Sales Surge and 20% Stream Increase|last=Precious|first=Gibson|publisher=Baller Alert|quote=Music industry insiders have pointed out that this could be a case of the Streisand effect, where attempting to suppress something only amplifies it.|date=December 1, 2024|accessdate=December 1, 2024}}