Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

TIME Names Mark Zuckerberg Person of Year

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the remember-when-it-was-you dept.

Facebook 317

theodp writes "Sorry, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates — there's a new geek kid in town. TIME magazine has selected Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg as its Person of the Year. Why? 'For connecting more than half a billion people and mapping the social relations among them; for creating a new system of exchanging information; and for changing how we all live our lives,' reasoned TIME At age 26, Zuckerberg is TIME's second-youngest selection, bested only by Charles Lindbergh. So what does Zuckerberg do for an encore — Academy Award, maybe?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

orly? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34560900)

more like douche-bag of the year.

Re:orly? (5, Funny)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561022)

Just this year?

For Better or *for Worse* ... (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561034)

more like douche-bag of the year.

Just to underscore the "for worse" part of what the Time person is defined as: "for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year."

Examples:

1938 Nazi Germany Adolf Hitler
1939 Soviet Union Joseph Stalin
1979 Iran Ayatollah Khomeini
2010 United States Mark Zuckerberg

Re:For Better or *for Worse* ... (1)

fussy_radical (1867676) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561248)

Your examples reminded me why the MOTY distinction can be ignored.
 
Combine this with Barbara Walters naming Jersey shore one of the top 10 most fascinating people and I want to try to jump off of this planet and swim to a new one.

Re:For Better or *for Worse* ... (2)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561394)

After all. Time magazine basically made it look like Einstein was the brain child that caused the atomic bomb to be created.

Re:For Better or *for Worse* ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34561266)

shit dude, do you have nothing better to do all day than try to first post on slashdot and submit slashdot stories? Get a life. Or a job. Better yet, just kill yourself.

Re:For Better or *for Worse* ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34561340)

more like douche-bag of the year.

Just to underscore the "for worse" part of what the Time person is defined as: "for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year."

Examples:

1938 Nazi Germany Adolf Hitler

1939 Soviet Union Joseph Stalin

1979 Iran Ayatollah Khomeini

2010 United States Mark Zuckerberg

For seriously? A) way to Godwin on the third post of the thread, B) you must be on some kind of awesome drugs to say the Mark Zuckerberg is on the same level as Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, and the Ayatollah Khomeini, C) Zuckerberg hasn't killed a single human being; let alone 52 million Soviets, or 6 million Jews, nor has he supported the persecution and murder of numerous Islamic sects that worship Allah differently than the Ayatollah.

Also, didn't Zuck just promise to become a philanthropist and give half his money away? WTF Eldavojohn? You mad? Why you mad? STFU and go back to IRC with this bullshit.

Re:For Better or *for Worse* ... (1)

lxs (131946) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561732)

Hi Mark, congratulations. Glad you could join us.

Funnily enough, I owe much to all these people:

Stalin: He made my dad want to flee the USSR.
Hitler: Created the opportunity for my dad to flee to the west.

Without these two he would never have met my mom and I wouldn't exist.

Ayatollah Khomeini: They dropped his coffin during his burial, making his corpse fall out. For me, this is one of the funniest moments in television history.

Mark Zuckerberg: Eeeh... Helped me meet women. And Mafia Wars... no wait that's a bad thig.

Life is strange sometimes.

Re:For Better or *for Worse* ... (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561378)

Stalin was Man of the Year (it didn't become Person of the Year until 1999) twice - once in 1939 and then again in 1942. George W. Bush was person of the year in 2000 - read into that what you will (Obama was in 2008). It's interesting that, over the last 15 years, only two have not been US citizens: Vladimir Putin and 'you'. Before 1995, the country of origin was rarely the same two years in a row. I'm not sure if this means that Time is becoming more parochial, or that they honestly believe that no one outside the USA is that influential anymore.

Re:For Better or *for Worse* ... (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561398)

Yeah, because whatever he has done with Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg is definitely on the same level as Hitler, Stalin and Khomeini... Sometimes I think peoples perspectives are screwed here on Slashdot, and its posts like yours that affirm that thought.

Re:For Better or *for Worse* ... (1)

openfrog (897716) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561400)

Just to underscore the "for worse" part of what the Time person is defined as: "for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year." Examples:
1938 Nazi Germany Adolf Hitler
1939 Soviet Union Joseph Stalin ...

To elaborate on "for the worse", a recent article by Tim Berners Lee (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=long-live-the-web) is quite relevant here to appreciate the impact of sites like Facebook:

Facebook, LinkedIn, Friendster and others typically provide value by capturing information as you enter it: your birthday, your e-mail address, your likes, and links indicating who is friends with whom and who is in which photograph. The sites assemble these bits of data into brilliant databases and reuse the information to provide value-added service—but only within their sites. Once you enter your data into one of these services, you cannot easily use them on another site. Each site is a silo, walled off from the others. Yes, your site’s pages are on the Web, but your data are not. You can access a Web page about a list of people you have created in one site, but you cannot send that list, or items from it, to another site.

The isolation occurs because each piece of information does not have a URI. Connections among data exist only within a site. So the more you enter, the more you become locked in.

Re:For Better or *for Worse* ... (0, Troll)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561434)

My lord, a handful of comments and already I've seen two comparisons to Hitler. That is pathetic, even by Slashdot standards. Why the vitriol? If you don't like Facebook, don't use it. How hard is this to understand? How is it really impacting your life, other than that it's, well, everywhere in the news and on promotional websites and so forth? (Which kind of might give you an indication as to why Zuckerberg got to this point.)

I've already [slashdot.org] given [slashdot.org] comments in previous stories on why I use Facebook and what value it gives to me, so I won't repeat them here. But for those who can't understand why he should be "person of the year", try thinking for a minute.

  • Facebook is easily the most successful social network site over the last couple of years, far eclipsing MySpace, Bebo, etc.
  • Major companies use it to run advertising campaigns. It's huge. Seriously, big. Have the people commenting here even noticed just how many companies these days have a "like us on Facebook" link to get some kind of promotional item? A "follow us on Facebook" link? Facebook has changed the way companies conduct their business. Think about that for a moment.
  • Heck, even Slashdot has the ubiquitous "share on Facebook" icon.

Seriously...comparisons to Hitler and Stalin? You really need to get some perspective, mate.

Re:For Better or *for Worse* ... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561464)

I guess it's fair to give him POTY then. He has greatly influenced the world, for the worse. He's commercialized human relationships and the loss of privacy, destroying both in the process.

Re:orly? (2)

Nikker (749551) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561044)

Hey man he did use wget in his movie that's 1337 enough for me!

Thoughts on the article... (4, Insightful)

ideonexus (1257332) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560906)

This article had its ups and downs, mostly downs. From the article:

"There are other people who can write code as well as Zuckerberg — not many, but some —"

If the Time profile of Zuckerberg is acurate, then I think even he would be offended by this statement.

"Websites entreat you to log onto them using your Facebook ID — the New York Times does, and so do Myspace and YouTube."

Hmmm... So does Time. Great job on the full disclosure principle there.

"Right now the Internet is like an empty wasteland: you wander from page to page, and no one is there but you."

Right, because all World Wide Web content is produced by robots.

Facebook wants to populate the wilderness, tame the howling mob and turn the lonely, antisocial world of random chance into a friendly world, a serendipitous world. You'll be working and living inside a network of people, and you'll never have to be alone again. The Internet, and the whole world, will feel more like a family, or a college dorm, or an office where your co-workers are also your best friends.

It'll be a wonderful land of lollypops and puppies and kittens! Privacy concerns? No worries:

"If "liking" an ad the same way you "like" a news article or a photo of your spouse seems creepy to you — it's more or less the definition of what Marx called commodity fetishism — you don't have to do it."

If you have privacy concerns, then GO BACK TO YOUR COLD LONELY INTERNET COMMIE!!!

"Zuckerberg has a talent for understanding how people work, but one urge, the urge to conceal, seems to be foreign to him. Sometimes Facebook makes it harder than it should be. It is biased in favor of sharing. That is, after all, what Facebook is for."

Facebook isn't leaking your personal information to make money, they're doing it because they genuinely misunderstand why people need to keep some things private. Why do you have a problem with this? What's wrong with you? Do you have some secret perverse sexual fetish? Are you performing criminal activities? When did you stop beating your wife?

I did like this thoughtful paragraph:

But what makes life complicated in the postmodern technocratic aquarium we're collectively building is that there actually are good reasons to want to hide things. Just because you present a different face to your co-workers and your family doesn't mean you're leading a double life. That's just normal social functioning, psychology as usual. Identity isn't a simple thing; it's complex and dynamic and fluid. It needs to flex a little, the way a skyscraper does in a high wind, and your Facebook profile isn't built to flex.

But then it goes to the other extreme of The Social Network's Gonna make you demented:

An article published earlier this year in European Psychiatry presented the case of a woman who lost her job to a Facebook addiction, and the authors suggested that it could become an actual diagnosable ailment... Facebook is supposed to build empathy, but since 2000, Americans have scored higher and higher on psychological tests designed to detect narcissism, and psychologists have suggested a link to social networking.

I do totally dig this quote, which applies to other online services as well:

Now Facebook is the bottle, and we're the genie. How small are we willing to make ourselves to fit inside?

The article was all over the place, but it does give me a more favorable opinion of Zuckerberg, a less favorable opinion of Facebook and Time, lots of concerns about adapting myself to the social network instead of it adapting to me, and now, if you'll excuse me, I must go break this comment down into 50+ tweets.

Re:Thoughts on the article... (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561098)

>>>"Right now the Internet is like an empty wasteland: you wander from page to page, and no one is there but you."

Guess they never heard of Usenet (since 1982) which allowed me connect with the producers of Babylon 5 and Earth Final Conflict, and the whole world when modem speeds were still just 1. Or chatrooms (just as old) or online gaming (1980's tradewars) or web-based discussion forums that are filled with lots of people.

Re:Thoughts on the article... (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561388)

No, probably because there were never 500 million people on Tradewars 2002 (a game i spent many hours playing, I might add.) Just because you and your friends were on there doesn't mean that a significant portion of the computer-owning world was... And with Facebook that has changed. Like it or not, it stretches farther and wider than Usenet, IRC, text MMOs, and just about every communication medium that came before it (the exception perhaps being email) ever could.

Re:Thoughts on the article... (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561470)

Like it or not, it stretches farther and wider than Usenet, IRC, text MMOs, and just about every communication medium that came before it (the exception perhaps being email) ever could.

Funny, there is one medium that has always been more popular than Facebook...if I remember correctly, it is called "The Internet," and it was around years before Facebook ever debuted. I seem to remember that network connecting billions of people around the world, and Facebook simply being one of the ways in which people use the Internet to connect to each other.

Re:Thoughts on the article... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34561586)

Don't be such a smug little bitch. You know what he meant.

Re:Thoughts on the article... (1, Insightful)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561648)

Funny, there is one medium that has always been more popular than Facebook...if I remember correctly, it is called "The Internet," and it was around years before Facebook ever debuted. I seem to remember that network connecting billions of people around the world, and Facebook simply being one of the ways in which people use the Internet to connect to each other.

Double funny. I sure did enjoy the days of yesteryear when, while browsing altavista.com, I was able to communicate directly with billions of other people...

Oh wait, that's not how it worked. The WWW was a conversation between you and the server. You sure have to stretch things a long way to insist that by virtue of viewing the same piece of HTML that you were somehow "connected" to everyone else who was looking at it too. That's like saying a library is a great way to meet people. Yes, there you will meet lots of people, who wish you would shut up so they could get back to reading. Notice a difference between that model, and Facebook? People are now empowered at a scale *never before seen* to communicate directly with each other.

Re:Thoughts on the article... (1)

Gunkerty Jeb (1950964) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561282)

"Now Facebook is the bottle, and we're the genie. How small are we willing to make ourselves to fit inside?" More aptly: Now Facebook is the bottle, and we're the drunk, sucking every last drip out of bottle after bottle until we're majestically drunk and delusional enough to think this is happiness.

Re:Thoughts on the article... (2)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561288)

It is a little annoying that anyone successful is portrayed as being an all round genius. He had the right combination of tech savvy, business acument and being in the right place at the right time-ness (you might call this "luck", but luck is an underrated skill) to have come up with a killer app.

Other people came up with more or less the same idea at about the same time and might have been successful were it not for various minor factors that made facebook succeed when others failed.

Re:Thoughts on the article... (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561440)

He built a better mousetrap. There were tons of others with the same savvy doing the same thing (friendster, myspace, etc) but in the end he won out, BIG time. Yes, you could say he won the lottery... But you had to be an extremely smart, determined individual to even be bestowed a lottery ticket in the first place.

Re:Thoughts on the article... (1)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561480)

"Right now the Internet is like an empty wasteland: you wander from page to page, and no one is there but you."

Right, because all World Wide Web content is produced by robots.

A more fitting description would be to say it’s like a city populated by ghosts. Usually, it’s not falling apart, it’s well-kept, and everything works perfectly. But whoever is doing stuff behind the scenes rarely does anything while you’re watching... it almost always happens behind your back.

quid pro quo (1)

entotre (1929174) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561484)

Time probably agreed to dispel the movie in exchange for zuckerberg-interview and details.

Julian Assange (5, Insightful)

Weezul (52464) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560912)

It obviously should have been Julian Assange, duh.

Re:Julian Assange (4, Insightful)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560964)

Any possibility that it was "suggested" to Time that Assange not be selected?

Re:Julian Assange (3, Interesting)

Weezul (52464) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561144)

I'd rock if he won both the Pulitzer and the Nobel Peace Prize though, obviously those send a far more important message, they are just not as quite as timely. lol

In any case, wikileaks will "expose an ecosystem of corruption" in a "major U.S. bank" early next year, while presumably continuing to work their way through the U.S. embassy cables. So I'd imagine he'll get another shot. :)

Amnesty International declare him a prisoner of conscience [wikipedia.org] once more details emerge about the rape accusations.

Re:Julian Assange (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561260)

For information, Assange has been at least nominated for Nobel Prize (a step that is easy to go through, even GW Bush did) : http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/0/3EB18677E7D6A80BC22577FA0021EA18?OpenDocument [naharnet.com]

I think it is a really likely choice for 2011. However, the Nobel committee could also estimate that Assange's popularity and presence in the medias protect him enough and will prefer to give it to a human right activist that really risks death penalty.

Re:Julian Assange (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561494)

I'd say that Assange is risking the death penalty, just not one that is preceded by due process.

Re:Julian Assange (1)

Weezul (52464) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561500)

I'd hope they'd seriously consider naming him if the U.S. actually charges him & attempts extradition, or simply kidnaps him of course. It would likely depend upon the consequences form the leaks otherwise, including other projects and disconnected leaks that seem inspired by wikileaks.

Or they might name him just to avoid naming another who angers China, Russia, etc. There were many people who claimed the committee picked Obama just to avoid picking a Chinese dissident, like Liu Xiaobo, or accidentally endorsing Bush's foreign policy by picking an Iranian dissident. Assange might provide a nice 'apology' to the Chinese and Russians before they name some more Chinese and Russians.

Re:Julian Assange (4, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561156)

Probably by the advertisers. Time selects the Person of the Year based on how much advertising money they can get for the issue, not based on the person's impact on the world. Advertisers want theirs ads opposite stories about stuff people like, not opposite stories about exposing how corrupt governments are.

Re:Julian Assange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34561688)

Is that why did not make Osama person of the year

Re:Julian Assange (1)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561314)

I've got an issue with these sorts of things (PotY, Oscars, etc.), namely that they're often heavily weighted by recentism. Wikileaks (NOT Assange, mind you, but Wikileaks) has been a big deal for a few weeks; say what you want about Zuck and Assange, and I agree with you, but people have literally not shut up about that bloody movie all year.

Re:Julian Assange (1)

johnsie (1158363) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560988)

I agree

Re:Julian Assange (3, Funny)

Peter Trepan (572016) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561010)

It should have been Assange, but Time magazine caved to government pressure! Now we attack! Our forces will go to the newsstands and look at Time magazine thousands of times per second, until there are no photons left for anyone else!

Re:Julian Assange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34561670)

Our other forces will post wiki leaked info into their Facebook statuses thus executing a low-bandwidth denial of service attack forcing the forces of darkness to close off access to Facebook. Oh wait, anon does have a Facebook account right?

Re:Julian Assange (1)

jnmontario (865369) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561070)

I can see Assange being next year (if the mag has the balls to actually publish his name) - after this shakes down a bit further. Assange's story is ongoing. As for Zuckerdouche - you have to respect him as a serious contender in that his product is used by millions of people and is used as a way for drunken college kids to post pics of girls kissing girls on a dance floor. All joking aside, FB is a serious societal consensus-shaping tool - think of the activism that has been orchestrated via. FB.

Re:Julian Assange (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561298)

I don't know about next year. Assange is sort of an arrogant twat himself. I suppose I just contradicted myself, because Zuckerberg (twat) apparently is person of the year.

Re:Julian Assange (5, Informative)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561074)

The voting results were:

1 Julian Assange 92 382024
2 Recep Tayyip Erdogan 80 233639
3 Lady Gaga 70 146378
4 Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert 81 78145
5 Glenn Beck 28 91746
6 Barack Obama 58 27478
7 Steve Jobs 61 24810
8 The Chilean Miners 47 29124
9 The Unemployed American 66 19605
10 Mark Zuckerberg 52 18353

What's the point in even asking for nominations if you choose some random lowlife anyway?

Re:Julian Assange (1)

TheL0ser (1955440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561256)

4 Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert 81 78145

Two people can be a person of the year? Or is this just because of the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear?

Re:Julian Assange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34561318)

Remember 2006? We were ALL Time's Person of the Year.

Re:Julian Assange (1)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561338)

Remember 2006? We were ALL Time's Person of the Year.

2011 person of the year: Life, the Universe, and Everything.

Re:Julian Assange (3, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561526)

Yes, there are a few examples in the past when multiple people have been selected, although not many:
  • 1937: Chiang Kai-shek and Soong May-ling
  • 1968: The Apollo 8 astronauts (William Anders, Frank Borman, and Jim Lovell)

And that's ignoring cases when it's been a group of people, such as:

  • 1950: The American Fighting-Man
  • 1960: US Scientists
  • 1966: The Generation Twenty-Five and Under.
  • 1975: American Women
  • 2006: You

Re:Julian Assange (1)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561412)

The difference between a popularity contest that garners interest and an annual event that garners appreciation. Yeah, the miners were part of a great story, but they and the "Unemployed American" haven't done anything. The story hits home, but the message isn't there, and the message is why we pay attention.

Re:Julian Assange (1)

rekenner (849871) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561524)

Because the results are fairly obviously rigged?
I mean, just saying, if you look at the numbers and scores, something funny is going on there.

Re:Julian Assange (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561650)

I'm not sure how to feel about both Lady Gaga and Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert beating out the President of the United States for most influential.

I notice Suck-it-berg is at the bottom of the list - how did he win? Do they just not actually care about votes?

Re:Julian Assange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34561702)

actually, what's the point of asking when people are retarded and choose so poorly... assange? erdogan? gaga? obama? jobs? suckerberg? the fucking chilean miners? W-T-F???

Re:Julian Assange (5, Interesting)

Fractal Dice (696349) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561194)

I see Wikileaks and Facebook as the two ends of this generation's tug of war over where power rests in the next phase of the information age. Wikileaks is taking the data of large organizations and putting it in the hands of the public. Facebook is taking the data of details of the public's lives and putting it into the hands of private organizations.

Re:Julian Assange (2)

Jazz-Masta (240659) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561402)

I see Wikileaks and Facebook as the two ends of this generation's tug of war over where power rests in the next phase of the information age. Wikileaks is taking the data of large organizations and putting it in the hands of the public. Facebook is taking the data of details of the public's lives and putting it into the hands of private organizations.

True, but both are driving towards complete transparency. Facebook is doing to people (on a small level, to their friends) what Wikileaks is doing to corporations. I have seen many people break-up, lose their jobs, or get seriously reprimanded for things found on Facebook.

Facebook wasn't the first social network, but it was the one that "stuck" with the general public. For that reason, Facebook has changed the way people use the Internet, much like Youtube and Google did in the past. That is why Mark is the person of the year. 2010 was a huge year for social networking - it exploded from teens/young adults and techies, to mainstream, middle-aged and older. Of course, having a movie out about you also keeps things fresh in people's minds. Like many other awards ceremonies, it's usually the last, or freshest movies that win all the awards.

Re:Julian Assange (2, Interesting)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561606)

I'm not sure that's fair. Assange is important, but he just founded wikileaks, he didn't populate it with content. The editor in chief, the founder etc. of the new york times don't really deserve enormous personal accolades for the pentagon papers. Wikileaks is valuable because it facilitates what journalists should be doing, but the vast majority of what it releases is of no value (by volume), but I'm not sure it's quite fair to make him person of the year. PFC manning, assuming he actually leaked the material maybe. But Julian Assange and Mark Zuckerberg both don't deserve the accolade for the same reason, they just made a website that other people can upload stuff to. 3 or 4 years from now, someone else could come along with a better way to upload stuff and either of them could be forgotten in a heartbeat.

Since time does award person of the year to more than just one person, I think a better answer might have been to give it to Wikileaks supporters (use editorial staff to come up with a better name) rather than just Assange, or to Wikileaks as a whole. For showing us that most of what happens in diplomatic meetings is mind numbingly boring and best left unrepeated, but the bad stuff can be very very bad.

Re:Julian Assange (1)

mqduck (232646) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561614)

It should have been Assange, yes. But even assuming it's *not* going to be Assange, why the hell should it be Mark Zuckerberg? What makes him the person of this particular year? Did Facebook do anything new in 2010 while I was avoiding it like the plague?

Re:Julian Assange (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561644)

We are reserving Assange for the Nobel Peace Prize. The fun part will be if his plane stops in Sweden when going to receive it.

Re:Julian Assange (-1, Troll)

ubermiester (883599) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561676)

I disagree.

What exactly has Assange done to change anything? He has a lot of fanbois who like to think they're changing the world, but Facebook actually has changed the world. Every day 500 million people use Facebook to interact in ways that were unimaginable only a few years ago.

Zuckerberg might be a douchbag, and an entire generation of people are going to spend the rest of their lives regretting things they posted online, but his work has definitely had more of an impact that Assange at this point.

Of course if Wikileaks ends up breaking some actual conspiracy rather than a bunch of gotchas that add up to nothing, then maybe he'll get it next year.

Re:Julian Assange (1)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561714)

No. I would say Bradly Manning, as he's the one facing the rest of his life in a cell, paying the price for all the lavish praise the Internet is lumping on Julian Assange.

Good choice (2, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560920)

Facebook is kinda silly but it did enable me to reconnect with old College & high school mates I've not seen in 10-15 years (since graduation). Good invention.

Re:Good choice (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561088)

Email is "kind of silly," but it did enable me to reconnect with old high school friends that I have not seen or heard from in many years. What makes Facebook so special, exactly? We were all connected to each other by the Internet long before Facebook debuted.

Re:Good choice (3, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561164)

>>>Email

I didn't know my old classmates' addresses so could not contact them by email. With facebook I can just drag-out the old yearbook and search for real names, or search for people in my graduation year. Also located an old teacher that I liked. (He's retired.)

Re:Good choice (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561210)

I didn't know my old classmates' email addresses, so I used a search engine to locate them.
I didn't know my old classmates' email addresses, so I used a directory service to locate them.

I have personally reconnected with old friends, not using Facebook, with about as much trouble as it would take you to log on to Facebook and search for those friends.

Re:Good choice (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34561594)

As much as I hate facebook (majority of the people I've "reconnected with" from the past, are people who friended me that I barely know, didn't want to get to know them at the time and care even less to 5 years later. I do have to say a random web search based on a name is hit or miss. Before facebook it was fairly uncommon for non-techs to have a webpage of any sort. I'd say less then 25% of the united states could be found via a search with just a name and a city they previously lived in, and most that can will be burried under 15 pages of random others with the same name, or even the correct person half mentioned in a newspaper, school article etc that does not provide any contact information of any use whatsoever.

Re:Good choice (1)

dc29A (636871) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561426)

I always wondered if people don't bother keeping contact with their classmates using more traditional means (email, phone), why do they bother reconnecting with them using Facebook? You didn't keep contact for 10-15 years, making one assume that these people were either boring, not classifiable as 'friends' or simply idiots, and now suddenly with Facebook there is this urge to reconnect. To the people who matter to me, I kept contact with them using traditional means, because I like their company/friendship. To the people I didn't bother keeping contact with, I won't, not gonna bother with Facebook nor (insert social network) du jour, because they are boring. I don't get Facebook. :(

Re:Good choice (1)

oh-dark-thirty (1648133) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561102)

Good invention at the outset, yes...I used to think of it as 'myspace for grownups'. Once it was poisoned by Zynga games, 'surveys', and the Facebook API, not so much.

Re:Good choice (1)

Jimpqfly (790794) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561166)

Nice invention which allows me to reconnect with old College & high school mates I'VE NEVER WANTED WANT TO SEE in 10-15 years (since graduation). Crap.

Re:Good choice (2)

zBoD (86938) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561214)

What?!!
I thought it was "great to talk again after so many years" :((
Two faced jackass!!! Unfriending you right now.

Re:Good choice (1)

Jimpqfly (790794) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561236)

*** Pwned *** -- Jimpqfly

Re:Good choice (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561548)

Yup, I went through that with Friends Reunited (remember that?). Keeping in contact with someone isn't much effort. If I can't be bothered, then there's probably a reason...

Re:Good choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34561206)

"Facebook is kinda silly but it did enable me to reconnect with old College & high school mates"

Wow, people who gave you wedgies 20 years ago, you must be a poor, friendless bitch, to need such useless contacts.

I didn't know they named cunts person of the year (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34560950)

Mark Zuckerberg is a lying, stealing cunt. Who would've thought a pathetic shit like him could be named Person of the Year. I hope he gets raped by bears.

Re:I didn't know they named cunts person of the ye (1)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561092)

The Person of the Year was never an endorsement, merely an indication of someone who was important for something for a year.

Remember, Hitler was Man of the Year (1938), and Stalin was Man of the Year twice (1939 & '42).

Re:I didn't know they named cunts person of the ye (1)

DreadPiratePizz (803402) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561342)

It sure doesn't work that way anymore, or else Bin Laden would have been person of the year in 2001.

Hmm... (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560958)

Connected half a billion people? When last I checked, we were already connected before Facebook...

"We live in the United States of Amnesia..." - Gore Vidal

Re:Hmm... (2)

mibe (1778804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561104)

Would you mind elaborating on that? It sounds like you're saying that Facebook hasn't changed much, which would be ridiculous. What's this whole internets thing anyway? I could buy things before that, couldn't I? And talk to people remotely, and send letters. Yeah it's not the same as saying the internet hasn't changed anything, but it's only because Facebook is part of the internet. Go to any college campus, anywhere, and find someone with a laptop. 999 times out of 1000, that person has Facebook open. If that isn't changing things, what is?

Re:Hmm... (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561186)

The point was not that Facebook has not changed anything, but rather that the change is not the simple fact that people are able to communicate with each other. The fact that Facebook is now used by 500 million people to communicate with their friends (or perhaps not really their friends) is not exactly revolutionary. The Internet was the revolutionary technological development that connected billions of people to each other; Facebook has only affected a change in how people use the Internet to communicate.

People still (1)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560966)

Read Time Magazine?

Re:People still (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561218)

Read Time F'in Magazine (RTFM) ??

Time cops out again (4, Interesting)

NotInfinitumLabs (1150639) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560974)

They've had a history of choosing a non-controversial candidate over the obvious winner since choosing the Ayatollah back in 1979 caused them to lose subscriptions. Remember when they picked Giulianni over Bin Laden?

Re:Time cops out again (1)

olsmeister (1488789) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561422)

I hope the Time Cops aren't actually out again. I thought Jean-Claude Van Damme was more or less washed up.

Anon Ops (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34560978)

If there is any justice in the world anonomous will DDOS Facebook for stealing Assangers rightful recognition.

TIME shows how irrelevant it has become. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34561048)

Much like "The Oscars" and "Playboy", TIME is an old business shaped around an old business model that is drawing its last few breaths. So hey let's name a new-kid-billionaire as Person of the Year instead of someone that has done something - that'll draw new business in!

Facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34561058)

Shit, and I don't even use it. Most of the people who I know that use it are really blasé about it.

Is this really that good?

No. (1)

emijrp (1754328) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561072)

[ I don't like this ]

Facebook sucks. I just dont get it. (-1, Offtopic)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561090)

I just dont see the use in facebook. I guess its because I barely get laid and dont give a fuck about people's virtual farms, vane attempts at being a model/celebrity or their stupid fucking updates.

I have shit to do... which reminds me...

Academy Award... (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561094)

So what does Zuckerberg do for an encore — Academy Award, maybe?"

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but you win Academy Awards for, generally, being IN or at least involved IN the production of a movie. The movie The Social Network was done without Zuckerberg's involvement or even approval. If it were probable to win an award for having nothing to do with a movie, Idiocracy would have bestowed an avalanche of awards on the American political and business leadership.

Big Deal (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34561136)

I won it [time.com] in 2006.

Offtopic but please help (1)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561196)

I appear to have broken slashdot.

My stories now load in a way that I have to click "More" a few times to get all comments.

Is there any way to have them load all comments by default, and is there any way to have it set that the majority of comments are abbreviated by default?

I want to do this with D2, and at least comments were fully expanded a few days ago before I broke it so it is possible....

I know I shouldn't post here but there isn't exactly a tech support line....any help appreciated!

Does a human being really need Facebook? (1)

UBfusion (1303959) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561238)

Does the time invested pay off? Does it increase your income? Does it increase your creativity? Does it heal your pain? Does it open new horizons for you? And finally, how much damage will it incur to you if you lose access to it (or if it disappears) and all your data and so-called friends evaporate?

Long ago I judged the pros and the cons, and I said NO. Hell, sometimes I wish the internet hadn't been invented at all - especially when I hear the tubes "running around my brain".

What's next, the Peace Nobel Prize?

Fail? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34561278)

I think so...

Breaking news (4, Funny)

dsavi (1540343) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561290)

Today Time Magazine announced the Person of the Year 2007.

Applaud (2, Interesting)

NuKe_MoNgOoSe (1941452) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561312)

That this man managed to come up with a idea which has set him and any future children he may have for life, I hate the fucker however for bringing about yet another medium which proves how simple people really are between FB and Twitter I know when any of my friends is having a hygeine issue, when they are going to the mall, when their sig other cheats on them, whenever they are having a bad day! Never have I felt closer or more wanting a gun in my entire life. I hate people and you can say this and argue that but it wont sway my opinion that humanity as a whole is a stunted child sitting in a corner chewing on crayons.

Times Magazine windows Coward Of The Year award (5, Insightful)

MouseR (3264) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561352)

For being too pussy to admit Assange has had greater impact, as noted by the reader vote.

Re:Times Magazine windows Coward Of The Year award (1)

MouseR (3264) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561376)

Damn I hate automatic spelling correction...

^ should have read wins.

You are Person of the Year (1, Funny)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561408)

Remember the year they made "you" the person of the year?

Yeah, don't forget to put that on your resume.

Lets ignore privacy and the true facebook owner (2)

zero0ne (1309517) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561450)

So we have a company that has no interest in maintaining at least some privacy [slashdot.org] for its users.

We also have a company that, as far as I know, is still in the courts regarding ownership [slashdot.org] .

Yet, somehow this CEO gets nominated as the person of the year? I wonder how much he had to pay for this.

This is of course ignoring the fact that he wasn't even in the top 5 of public nominations.

Sell, sell, sell ! (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561474)

If that is "Person of the year...." most likely to rip off your personal information and sell it, then the correct choice was made. Last I heard on the TV news is that WikiLeaks' Julian Assange was running away with it in the poll, someone must have been doing some serious clicking to not make it turn into another PR disaster for governments.

Time? (1)

yoshi_mon (172895) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561514)

That rag still exists? Wow, I thought they might have gone the way of the dodo by now.

Seriously, I remember picking one up when I was in some waiting room a few years ago and it was like the ad flyers I get in my mailbox but they spent the extra dime to include a few staples.

Most Overrated Person Of The Year (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561540)

I still don't understand why we are heaping so much praise on someone who has driven us to waste so much time. And no, I'm not saying I could have done it better; I would not have attempted to program anything like facebook because I would have seen it as a waste of time from the beginning. Nonetheless, what is the big deal, really? I don't see how his work has in any way improved life for anyone other than himself, or how this is important enough to warrant such honors.

If the movie about his life wins an Oscar I might never watch another Oscar winner again.

Re:Most Overrated Person Of The Year (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34561634)

If the movie about his life wins an Oscar I might never watch another Oscar winner again.

Ah! I see the problem... you're a narrow minded twit.

decade of irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34561652)

lets pass out peace prizes to men who escalate wars and
men of the year awards to men who openly acknowledge you have no privacy and
we plan on making billions off you.

I don't think he changed my life (2)

cats-paw (34890) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561682)

other than the fact that I have to listen to so many people talk about facebook.

and get off my lawn !

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?