The Silencing Of Guy Adams Gives Another Graphical Representation Of The Streisand Effect
from the well,-look-at-that... dept
We've talked plenty about the Streisand Effect for years, but every so often something happens that actually demonstrates the impact graphically with data. We saw this a couple years ago when Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder tried to censor a satirical article about himself.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: guy adams, impact, streisand effect
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and my response is:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streisand Effect
We really don't have any idea how often the censorship is effective; we generally only hear about the cases where it's successfully protested. I would presume that it's effective a lot of the time, or else the "reputation management" companies that do it would be completely out of business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Streisand Effect
It's not about whether or not something works with these companies, it's whether or not they can convince someone to spend money on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Streisand Effect
But people and companies get filthy rich selling them anyways :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
"If that doesn't work, redress it and try to sell it again!"
"If that doesn't work, change the description and pretend it is new!"
"If that doesn't work, ignore everybody and keep trying!"
"If that doesn't work, dig deeper!"
"If that doesn't work, go to another crowd and try again!"
"If that doesn't work, take five, comeback and say you have something new to show and do the same thing again!"
"If that doesn't work, find a patsy!"
I shouldn't be doing this (trying to have fun), because I do understand that we will see an act repeated over and over and over again, by many because the underlying cultural references are the same for every one and so many people reach the same conclusion which in this case is that some feel that they always will get a pass from the public for doing something they feel it is in their best interests and anybody in their position would understand.
Nope, most people will not understand trying to censor others no matter who you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
another effect
By searching for the email address in quotes here:http://agoogleaday.com/#date=2012-07-29
June 29th: 141
Today: ~5,900
And honestly, most of the 141 results are websites where the deja google machine doesn't seem to work.
Way to put a silence to that "private" email address...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, people are talking far more about Guy Adams, the fact that NBC silenced him, why they silenced him, and the fact that NBC suck at olympics.
But what real effect does that have? Is it actually causing real harm to NBC in terms of lost profits? Or is it just an echo chamber of people reblogging, retweeting, linking to and otherwise preaching to the choir about the incident?
Yeah this was a bad thing NBC did, but you can't really boycott them, and most advertisers aren't going to give a damn. I guess in addition to several other similar incidents the combined fallout would result in some advertisers backing away but that'd be a pretty big step.
Seriously, if NBC released a statement saying "yes we had his account shut down because he was criticising us, what the hell are you going to do about it?" there'd be an absolute hellstorm of comments and blog posts and articles and all that jazz all over the internet but what would the actual, quantifiable harm to NBC be? What real harm has it done to them this time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I also think the internet at this point is a very big empty room, with a few people banging pots and pans. The echo effect makes it sound like it's a lot more people, but really it isn't. It's the noisy 1% at the extreme ends trying to make you think they represent the rest of the people, when they really don't.
Oh, IMHO, NBC's coverage is just fine. It wasn't that long ago that the Olympics was a couple of hours highlights at night, and have a nice day. Now people have the gall to bitch because a few minutes of a show was edited out, and that it wasn't entirely live.
Wow. Technology makes them into beeyaches, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And Twitter will have to do some serious work to recover the lost trust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speech Therapist Sydney
[ link to this | view in chronology ]