The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet. It is an example of psychological reactance, wherein once people are aware something is being kept from them, their motivation to access and spread the information is increased.[1]



It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose 2003 attempt to suppress photographs of her residence in Malibu, California, inadvertently drew further public attention to it. Similar attempts have been made, for example, in cease-and-desist letters to suppress numbers, files, and websites. Instead of being suppressed, the information receives extensive publicity and media extensions such as videos and spoof songs, often being widely mirrored across the Internet or distributed on file-sharing networks.[2][3] Click to expand...

So this happened: Milo Yiannopoulos's UC Berkeley speech cancelled due to protests, campus on lockdown One of the arguments made in the thread that while it is a noble cause to protest against ideas one finds detestable, a side effect could also be increased exposure for the target. Also known as the Streisand Effect.This spike in sales will of course be temporary (probably), just like his temporary spike on Google Trends ( https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=now 4-H&q=Milo Yiannopoulos Worth it? What do you all think? It's kind of game theory-esque in a way.P.S. Please keep it focused to the specific question at hand. Everything else was debated enough in the other thread.If you don't know who this guy is then, good.Or, use the internet search if you want to know more: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=milo+yiannopoulos