286
Trump’s niece explains why ‘rattled’ president is lashing out at female reporters
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
286 points (96.7% liked)
politics
26519 readers
1982 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sure, as long as it's understood to be a subset of the survivorship bias.
You're still missing the point. The Streisand Effect describes a specific chain of events.
A rich or powerful person sees something that literally no one else has noticed, attempts to supress it, and by making the attempt, calls vastly greater attention to the item they were trying to suppress.
There's no survivorship bias to it, because if any of those events are missing, then it's not the Streisand Effect. It's just attempted, or successful, suppression.
And again I say that the author of the linked article, also has a misunderstanding of the Streisand Effect.
I would love to see some scientific data or analysis of this. Until then, it's an internet-described phenomenon and though it appears to make sense, can only be taken so seriously.
I don't get why you need science for this, it's a linguistic thing. It's just the name for a particular situation, not a statement that certain things can be predicted from other things.
This whole thing is a chain of events that could happen, and, if it does, then this is called the Streisand Effect.
If any part of it doesn't happen - if the person doesn't fear the situation, or if they doesn't make suppression attempts, or if the the suppression attempts actually work and the story dies, or if the suppression attempts don't work but still no one much cares - then it's just not the Streisand Effect.
Terming it an "effect" does seem to imply that it's stating a meaningful prediction, that there is a serious liklihood of things progressing this way based on initial choices.
Think of it as kind of like the weather. There are multiple competing and cooperating underlying factors that combine to some actual weather result. One of those effects, left to its own devices, causes rain, but the existence of that effect doesn't mean every scenario involving that factor will lead to rain, since other things could interfere.
Reddit page where people discuss this exact conversation.
Edit: I realize I basically start by saying the Streisand Effect shouldn't primarily be thought of as a causative thing, and then later compare it to factors that affect the weather, themselves causative things.
The Streisand Effect is, basically: what happens when you try to suppress something, should news of that suppression lead to drawing much greater attention to the original thing than would otherwise have occured. "Congratulations, you played yourself." It's not prescriptive - attempts to suppress don't inherently lead to the blowup. You could also think of it as the "Overcompensation Effect", what happens when attempts at correction cause a new problem - though the Streisand Effect is very specifically not about the news of the cover up as an end, but as a means to the original story news blowing up.