您现在的位置: 首页 > 网站导航收录 > 百科知识百科知识

史翠珊效应(芭芭拉史翠珊)

这一,效应,之人史翠珊效应(芭芭拉史翠珊)

发布时间：2016-12-08加入收藏来源：互联网点击：

很多朋友想了解关于史翠珊效应的一些资料信息，下面是小编整理的与史翠珊效应相关的内容分享给大家，一起来看看吧。

欲盖弥彰的 Streisand Effect（史翠珊效应） Outrage Management（公愤管理）

Original 心理探寻 Psychology心理探寻 1 week ago

The rich and powerful bullies of the world — governments, corporations, celebrities, etc. — have lots of creative ways to control the public's access to information, especially when that information makes them look bad: intimidation, bans, bribery or straight-up censorship. But every once in a while, an especially clumsy censorship effort backfires and the situation goes from bad to much, much worse.

世界上有钱有权的那些坏蛋——、企业、名人等，有许许多多控制大众信息获取渠道的方法，尤其当这些信息对他们不利时。这些方法包括：恐吓、禁令、贿赂，或审查。但时不时，某个比较拙劣的审查行为会适得其反，让情形愈加恶化。

Take the case of Barbra Streisand, award-winning actress, singer and owner of a sprawling mega-mansion near the wealthy coastal enclave of Malibu, California. Back in 2003, Streisand sued a photographer named Kenneth Adelman because he refused to delete a photo of her Malibu mansion from an online project that tracked erosion on the California coastline. Adelman wasn't a paparazzo trying to snag a shot of Babs in her bathing suit. He was documenting an important environmental issue.

比如芭芭拉·史翠珊。她是一位曾荣获奖项的演员和歌手，同时也在加利福尼亚马里布富豪区拥有一栋超大豪华别墅。2003年，史翠珊起诉了一位名为 Kenneth Adelman 的摄影师，因为在这位摄影师在一项追踪加利福尼亚海岸线秦时情况的网上项目中拍摄到了史翠珊的豪宅，而且拒绝删除。Adelman 并非是一个试图偷拍芭芭拉身穿泳装照的狗仔记者，他不过是在记录一项重要的环境问题。

Streisand obviously felt that her privacy had been violated, so she took Adelman to court for $50 million in damages. The irony was that before Streisand took Adelman to court, the online image of her house had been downloaded a grand total of six times, twice by her own lawyers. But after the media caught wind of Babs' outrageous $50 million lawsuit, the image was downloaded 420,000 times in just a month and publicized around the world. (For an added kick in the teeth, the judge dismissed the case.)

史翠珊明显感到她的隐私被侵犯了，所以她起诉 Adelman，要求5000万美元赔偿。而讽刺之处在于，在史翠珊起诉 Adelman之前，网上这张她豪宅的照片只有6次下载量，其中两次是她自己的律师下载的。但自从媒体获知她这场索赔额高达5000万美元的诉讼后，图片下载量在一个月内就飙升到42万次，而且在全球范围内得以传播。（更糟糕的是，法官还拒绝受理了该案件。）

Streisand wasn't the first would-be censor to get burned by her own attempt to repress information, but her name became indelibly attached to the phenomena when the TechDirt blogger Mike Masnick jokingly labeled the backfire the "Streisand effect."

史翠珊并不是首个因想要压制信息，却适得其反、引火上身之人，但在 TechDirt 博主 Mike Masnick 戏谑地将这一后果称为“史翠珊效应”后，她的名字就牢牢地和这一现象关联在了一起。

"Nobody had paid much attention to the whole thing until the lawsuit, which I'm sure Streisand wishes she had never undertaken," says Sue Curry Jansen, professor emeritus of media and communications at Muhlenberg College, who co-authored a 2015 paper about the curious dynamics of the Streisand effect.

“在这个诉讼之前，没有人对这整件事情给予很大关注。我相信史翠珊现在会但愿当初自己没提起这场诉讼。”穆伦堡学院媒体与通信专业荣誉退休教授 Sue Curry Jansen说道。他曾在2015年与他人合著了一篇关于史翠珊效应独特运作原理的论文。

The Streisand effect is a product of public outrage and blowback over perceived censorship or any attempt by someone with power to repress free speech. As Streisand's lawsuit shows, a lot of supposedly "dangerous" information wouldn't likely draw much attention if left uncensored, but the very act of trying to repress it creates public outrage, which ends up shining a far brighter light on the information in the process. Not to mention that people are naturally curious about anything that is being covered-up or attempted to be suppressed. "Why is this information being hidden?" we wonder.

史翠珊效应的产生原因，是对于所察觉到的审查行为，或者任何有权力之人试图压制自由言论的行为，公众所产生的民愤（公众愤怒）以及反抗。正如史翠珊的诉讼事件所显示的，一些被视为“危险”的信息，如果不去审查监管，可能并不会吸引多少关注，但恰恰是“试图压制它”这一行为本身，创造了民愤，这就导致在这一过程中为这一信息带来了更大的曝光度。更不要说人们天生就对被掩盖或试图被压制的东西感兴趣。“为什么这一信息要被掩盖？”我们会好奇。

It's also been shown that banning books or blocking access to certain websites only serves to increase public demand for the censored information. One study from 2018 found that China's attempts to block access to sites like Twitter and Facebook prompted millions of otherwise apolitical citizens to download VPN software to evade the censors and access the sites.

另外也有证据显示，禁止一些书籍，或者阻止对一些网站的访问，只会推升公众对所禁信息的需求。2018年的一项研究发现，中国对诸如 Twitter 和 Facebook的禁止，促使数百万本来不关心政治的中国公民开始下载VPN软件，打破封锁，访问这些网站。

Poetic Justice in Action

那些“报应终不爽”的“诗正义”实例

In their paper, Jansen and her co-author Brian Martin of the University of Wollongong in Australia highlight some truly shining examples of the Streisand effect at work, from global corporations to grade-school cafeterias:

在他们的论文中，澳大利亚伍伦贡大学Jansen 和 Brian martin提到了一些关于史翠珊效应的典型例子，这些例子涵盖范围从全球企业到小学餐厅不等。

The fast food giant McDonald's made a huge mistake in the 1990s when it sued two volunteers with the activist organization London Greenpeace for a street pamphlet they wrote called, "What's Wrong with McDonald's?" The trial, which the British press dubbed "McLibel," became the longest-running civil trial in British history and handed critics of McDonald's a media bullhorn for publicizing the chain's exploitative advertising, low pay and unhealthy food. And just like Streisand, McDonald's ended up losing the lawsuit.

快餐巨头麦当劳曾在上世纪90年代犯下一个巨大错误。当时，他们起诉了London Greenpeace这一活动人士组织中的两位志愿者，因为他们写了一篇名为《麦当劳怎么了》文章印在册子上在街头分发。这一诉讼被英国媒体称为“McLibel”，而且该诉讼称为英国历史上持续时间最长的一场民事诉讼。这场诉讼几乎像是为麦当劳的批评者们亲手递上了媒体这一大喇叭，将该连锁品牌的剥削式广告、低薪酬和不健康食品广泛传播。而且像史翠珊一样，麦当劳最后输掉了这场诉讼。

Fox News also fell victim to the Streisand effect the same year that Streisand shot herself in the proverbial foot. In 2003, the cable news network sued Al Franken — then a comedian and actor, not yet a senator — for copyright infringement over his anti-conservative book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right." Fox News alleged that the phrase "Fair and Balanced" was its intellectual property, but a judge disagreed. Not only did Fox News lose the case, but the free publicity shot Franken's book to the top of the bestseller list.

 1/3    1 2 3 下一页 尾页