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.

The point of the Streisand Effect is the attempted suppression backfiring. The attempted suppression draws more attention than otherwise would have happened.

I think you’re missing that in your understanding.

It’s a misuse of the term. The Streisand Effect is when the rich or powerful try to supress something that no one knew about, calling greater attention to it.

The term was coined when Barbara Streisand tried to go after a guy for taking pictures of her home as part of a large aerial coastal photography project.

No one knew where her house was until she went after the guy, who also didn’t know. It blew up massively, and now anyone can see Barbara Streisand’s old house.

The point is that design patents are fucking stupid and should not exist in the first place.

Apple has sued other phone manufacturers over them making a rectangle with rounded corners.

And it’s fucked.