The “Streisand Effect” and the ethical dilemmas of the fact-checker: when public denial harms more than it benefits

The main goal of fact-checker is to identify misinformation and publish refutations in order to minimize its consequences for society. However, in some cases, public exposure of a fake may play against the goal: to attract attention to conspiracy theories or false information that previously circulated only in a narrow segment. In this article, we tell you how not to harm by refutation and what consequences silence can have.

The method of “strategic silence”: what is it?

“Strategic silence” is a communicative practice in which a conscious refusal is made to publish a refutation, provided that it does not allow false information to gain popularity. Although some accounts use fact-checking to monetize or promote certain narratives, most professional fact-checkers are guided by an ethical imperative to prevent the social risks associated with misinformation. In this context, strategic silence becomes a tool of defense, not inaction: social media algorithms often make viral precisely what has been actively discussed, even to refute it.

But the popularity of disinformation isn’t static. A fake that starts locally can eventually go viral.

Therefore, fact checkers need to monitor the dynamics of the spread and identify the “tipping point” in time, when silence ceases to be a protection and turns into a risk, allowing lies to strengthen without counterarguments.

The “Streisand Effect”: when an attempt to hide enhances

A vivid example of the harm of explicitly opposing the dissemination of information is the “Streisand effect,” named after singer Barbra Streisand. In 2003, she filed a lawsuit against photographer Kenneth Adelman, who posted a photo of her house on the website among 12,000 photographs of the California coast (to document erosion and development). californiacoastline.org. The lawsuit was dismissed, but the story itself received a huge response: in a month, more than 420 thousand people visited the site — those who previously did not even know about the existence of this picture. Since then, the term “Streisand effect” describes situations where an attempt to suppress information leads to its mass dissemination.

Other examples:

• In 2012, Martha Payne, a 12-year-old Scottish girl, blogged about school lunches. After Chef Jamie Oliver’s support, local authorities banned her from photographing food, citing the protection of staff. As soon as Marta wrote about the ban, the story went viral, got into the national media, and the authorities were forced to reverse the decision.

• The US government has banned federal employees from accessing WikiLeaks from their work computers. In response, activists created hundreds of “mirrors” of the site, and the ban itself received widespread coverage, increasing interest in leaks.

• Attempts to censor information about Hunter Biden, the son of the 46th president of the United States, have led to the opposite effect – a sharp increase in attention to the topic.

“The Streisand effect” is particularly dangerous in sensitive areas.:

The panic surrounding the “Momo challenge” has become a source of harm: parents and teachers, by spreading alarming warnings, unwittingly introduced children to the character.

Instead of protection, this could trigger fear, anxiety, or, in rare cases, careless imitation—especially in vulnerable adolescents.

A similar conspiracy theory surrounds Wayfair, which was accused of selling children as furniture (due to its names containing girls’ names). This information became widely known only after major media outlets and fact-checkers began refuting it. Although before this it existed only in niche communities.

When doing fact-checking procedure, it is necessary to consider the context and scale of the spread of disinformation. If the fake has not gone beyond a narrow audience and does not cause a public outcry, it is better to refrain from public denial and apply strategic silence. This helps to avoid its unjustified popularization.

However, this approach requires constant monitoring: it’s important to notice when information begins to go viral and then promptly issue a review, so as not to miss the moment when silence becomes more harmful than spreading the truth.

The same applies to censorship or labeling of content: without explanation, such measures can be perceived as an attempt to conceal the “truth,” which reinforces trust in fake news among vulnerable users. Therefore, any restrictions must be accompanied by transparent, reasoned explanations to avoid the opposite effect. Ultimately, the ethics of fact-checking also entails responsibility for the consequences of the act of exposure itself.