I see what you mean. In my experience of the internet it’s called “The Streisand Effect” only when the person complaining about something (and therefore giving an issue attention that it otherwise wouldn’t have received) is generally considered to be “in the wrong” on the issue. I can’t think of a case where someone received blowback for speaking up about an issue (professional repercussions, exclusion from social circles, “cancelling” by various parties, w/e) but was considered to be in the right by the the people calling it “The Streisand Effect”. It feels like there’s a necessary component of “you complained about something you shouldn’t have and were justly punished for it” schadenfreude attached to the term that differentiates it: if you don’t have that you’re just bravely and correctly shining a light on an injustice and it’s not called “The Streisand Effect”, it’s just raising awareness or something.

I think you’re being downvoted because the victim of the alleged injustice complaining about that injustice and then deserving the backlash is baked into the term, and calling it “victim blaming” feels off, but it technically is, it’s just that calling something “The Streisand Effect” implies that the “victim” in the situation deserved what they got because they complained about something trivial, or an effect of privilege, or some other thing that, in the eyes of the public, makes them unworthy of sympathy. But I think carrying that implication of guilt means that it is, technically, victim blaming, and the person using the term “The Streisand Effect” implicitly agrees that the victim deserves blame for their actions. And knowing the internet, I doubt this assessment is correct 100% of the time.

I’m curious to see if other people agree with this assessment. I haven’t done any research on whether my experience of the term is shared by other people, so this may not be a strong theory. Just a thought that spawned off your comment. But it is an interesting perspective.

I think it has to do with the kinds of stories these characters are used to tell. Batman is a tortured billionaire who tries to use his vast resources to solve the problem of crime single-handedly, and he keeps people at arm’s length because he’s afraid that personal ties will endanger the mission he’s given himself (or something like that, Batman scholars feel free to chime in if I got it wrong.). Spiderman is a story about a broke kid trying to make a difference in the world with the limited resources he has. Similar goals for both characters, but different preconditions make the stories meaningfully different.

I think these flaws are what endear fans to a particular character because they struggle with the same problems (overly self-reliant, broke as hell) and if you have a character grow past them, you’re now telling a meaningfully different story. Might still be an interesting story, but I get why people who love these characters would consider some changes to be dealbreakers.

This is kind of a foundational feature of serialized character stories: if you want to keep telling stories about the same characters over and over again, they can’t fundamentally learn or grow or change meaningfully, not permanently anyway, because then the appeal of the character fundamentally changes, so you get characters like Batman who are stuck in this sitcom-y eternal purgatory of constantly slamming their heads against their own limitations, and still failing to grasp the root issue. And really I think, it’s not for them to figure out. Their stories are there so that we can see our own flaws in them, and learn from them. And once we have, Batman will still be out there, being a lonely nerd for other lonely nerds to identify with.

They’re intentionally easy questions because ego stroking is a tried and true way to farm engagement. Like those old ads that went like:

99% of MIT students got this question WRONG! can YOU do better?

3 + 8 / 2 = ?

The Post Office is secretly being controlled by the US Government. If you look at the actual laws of the US it allows the President to appoint someone called the Postmaster General who’s in charge of the whole thing.

I think it would be a pretty good prank to bring this up in a “favorite crazy conspiracy theory” conversation where all but one participant agrees that it’s a baseless conspiracy theory and see if the one other person insists that the Postmaster General Theory is real, or goes along with the crowd. But I really don’t think my friends are coordinated enough to pull it off.

Are you inviting me to a money fight? I do love those. Let’s both put in ludicrous bids on some AI company and fight over ownership to pump it’s value in the market, I haven’t done one of those in months. Winner buys the next yacht we sink in the Bermuda Triangle to appease the Elder Ones, Respect upon their Unknowable Names. If only the poor knew how hard we worked to prevent this puny planet from being eaten by elder demons, they would be grateful.

Question: would I have to give up my exploitative companies that fuel my bid to become the first King of Internet? Because that’s kind of a dealbreaker for me.