3 ms·
I think you might be conflating the Streisand effect with something else? The Streisand Effect describes the case where a party (business, person, etc) attempt
by akerl_ 7y ago
I think you might be conflating the Streisand effect with something else?
The Streisand Effect describes the case where a party (business, person, etc) attempts to tell people to ignore or not look at something they disapprove of, which then causes people to go look at that thing. The origin of the term comes from Barbara Streisand filing lawsuits to attempt to suppress photos she didn’t want publicized, which ended up popularizing the photos (because people heard about the lawsuit). For more context: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
I’m thus not sure how it could be immoral, given that the effect is perpetrated by the person who ends up negatively impacted, not by the resulting people who learn about the disputed content.
If you’re referring to the mob mentality that often follows the public becoming aware of something (either via the Streisand effect or otherwise), I agree that the morality of using quantity-of-displeased-humans-on-the-internet as a tool for changing behavior is a dangerous and often misused method.
- michaelt 7y agoI’m thus not sure how it could be immoral What if, rather than Streisand suing someone distributing an aerial photo of her house, instead she sued someone distributing a revenge porn video, or leaked medical records? If trying to get your privacy protected in such a case has the opposite effect, how can any privacy law work?
- jessaustin 7y agoIn our current environment, that would be a different thing. People have a right to privacy with respect to images of our naked bodies. We don't have a right to privacy with respect to pubic knowledge of horrible things we've done. However, there is a tension here, and it might be resolved in the long run by doing away with any privacy whatsoever, at least for regular people.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y agoOP got the point, and you’re just repeating “mob justice is ok because these are horrible people”.
- jessaustin 7y agoHaha try again SureBet.
- akerl_ 7y agoThe point I’m advocating for is that the Streisand effect isn’t the part of that which is immoral, it’s just the concept that the methods of taking action against some information inherently draws attention to it. The revenge porn video being posted is definitely immoral, and the mob looking at the video is immoral, but the concept of the Streisand effect is at best inconvenient, it’s not immoral.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- UncleEntity 7y ago> If trying to get your privacy protected in such a case has the opposite effect, how can any privacy law work? I've only really seen the term applied to trying to squash perfectly legal activities like, for example, putting online California coastal images which very few people even knew about before hand.