If she attempted to have the book banned from Amazon (or get her husband to do it), and sales rose, then I would agree with calling it a case of the "Streisand Effect". But all she did was say "The events described do not match my recollections as a primary source."

That makes me less inclined to read it.

I'm not sure, I think the streisand effect works when people want to access the source material to see by themselves. The problem here is that you and I can't easily fact-check the book by yourself and therefore we can't really make our own opinion by buying and reading it. Therefore I can't really imagine anyone buying it because "hey, someone knowledgeable on the subject said it was full of half truths!"

More like "this book is so damning, that even Bezos's wife had to do damage control". That's the impression I got at least.

Well, what that means depends on your view of the maxim that "all publicity is good publicity". I'm sure more copies will be sold. I'm also sure more copies will be read with a more skeptical eye than normal. And for many of us, the quality of her review, the specificity, especially to critical and basic factual errors, tells us a lot if we find her believable (helpfully she cites two other reviewers making the same claim). For me, that's enough to decide not not buy it.

I think excerpts from the book, focusing on finding Bezos's biological father, were posted to HN previously.

"Streisanded"? I think that's the worst word I will see or hear this week.

barbarism streisanded?