> I love how the "Streisand effect" is an example of itself.
For the Streisand effect to be an example of itself, there would have to be an attempt to ban or suppress the usage or knowledge of the idea of the effect. I don't think that's happened, so I don't see how it's self-referential.
"It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose attempt to suppress the California Coastal Records Project's photograph of her residence in Malibu, California, taken to document California coastal erosion, inadvertently drew further attention to it in 2003."
My point is that more people know about Barbra Streisand and the Streisand Effect because of Streisand's attempts to suppress information.
I'd be willing to say that there are more people that know of Barbara Streisand for being Barbara Streisand than because of the Streisand Effect. That effect is a pretty niche kind of internet term whereas Streisand was proper famous well before the internet existed. Sure, you may have TIL who she was, but let's not swipe that broad brush so freely.
There's also a classic Liz Carroll reel, "Barbra Streisand's Trip to Saginaw": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr2RgTmO1pI
(I was in the (Saginaw) audience the night Liz named it.)
I'm guessing anyone in theater/drama/choir classes in high schools today would also be familiar regardless orientation. Venn diagrams of those groups would probably look very circle-ish.
Streisand was 22 in 1964 when her career kicked-off with Funny Girl. I think she (like Marvin Hamlisch) was more popular with the 'Silent Generation' (1928-45).
If Streisand had that kind of power at that time there could well have been no Streisand effect - though perhaps that is unconstitutional in the USA ....
Eh, I just looked it up and the Streisand effect was about an aerial photograph of Streisand's mansion which she wanted to hide, not about promotion of Streisand's work. So unless you downloaded that photo, I guess this is an anti-example (as in this case the effect worked in her favor, not against her).
She was trying to take down an image that was on a niche ecological website with six downloads. It is now the example image of a Wikipedia article on a commonly used term. That's a big net loss.
