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.
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.