The Streisand Effect refers to the outcome of an attempt to suppress information, eg. having your lawyer threaten to sue a news organization. The attempt need not be successful.

Maybe more clearly - the Sreisand Effect is the resultant *BackLash* to censorship attempts

Censorship happens.

Censorship attempts happen.

The Streisand Effect is a backlash to the failed attempt at censoring something which a minority wants to keep information from a majority.

---

I think there are some higher-level Streisand-Effects that we have yet to experience.

Of which, it will always, ultimately, manifest as a violent act against those who are publishing (regardless of medium), information which the opposing elite(^Citation Needed) - want to quell...

I'd really rather avoid using the word 'censorship' in this context, it doesn't require government involvement.

Ah I see, thanks for clarifying. Is it unreasonable to expect a similar phenomenon to occur for countered information?

It's an interesting question. I feel like both turn on "What they don't want you to know!" mental lures.

But I'd guess there are some subtle differences? If a debate is being had about a thing, it's hard to say "they" don't want you to know.

It's quite similar, but you're technically right according to the wiki definition. I think both evoke similar feelings in the original poster or poster's Internet social circle.

I think "The government doesn't like us saying this" headlines would have the same effect despite the precise difference in definition here.