This is known as the Streisand effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
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.
Here’s a “pop up” version of the music video with more details about the song: https://youtu.be/i_QOeWflG9g
I remember first hearing this song playing on someones phone back when the best mobile game was that nokia red ball thing.
In my opinion, in ten or twenty years this will shift even further and young people will know the Streisand name only because of the "effect".
But I reckon I could still sing along with You Don't Bring Be Flowers Anymore and Woman In Love and get most of the lyrics right.
She's more my parent's era than mine, but like The Beatles and Cat Stevens, I grew up listening to my parents music...
People want to get tickets because ticket are hard to get
the Streisand Effect is fake news.
Shit, now I feel old.
Like for example, if something came out that some persons might use to try an embarrass me, I let it stay out for a while and don't really address it. Two to three people tweet it and it doesn't go further, hundreds of people weren't compelled to save it "for the lulz". Then a few weeks or months later I get the service to take it down, the person that posted barely notices or understands that their voice is not strong enough and the bar to change that is much higher and they've moved on to some other issue de jour.
Yes, there is a possibility that it circulates pretty far initially, or that the thing being shared gets ingrained into the consciousness as truth, but in those circumstances providing a reaction involving the law or lawyers would still amplify it.
people try ad hominem attacks but nobody cares, or think that I’m vulnerable because I’ve had public facing roles and try to act on that but it’s just them wasting energy
its basically something like "what you can't have an opinion online! I can damage you therefore I'll try to damage you!" and then realize they have no reach and the world doesn't work the way they think it does
That was 1998. Streisand was 2003.