Mark Zuckerberg is Time Magazine's Person of the Year

[Hamlet]

He was awesome in The Social Network lol

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,2036683,00.html

And I'm sorry, Julian Assange, but if there was a Person of the Last Two Months award, then you'd win it.

Team Assange are trolling the page pretty hard right now, complaining about the public poll which a) Has no bearing on the editor's final choice and b) They no doubt attempted to manipulate themselves. The most amusing part is that many of the complaints are posted via Facebook connect.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

For the past couple of weeks, I've been trying to predict who it would be. I figured this year, it wouldn't be a single individual but a concept or population that reflected the economy (like the "American Middle Class"). I hoped to god the TEA Party wouldn't be named Persons of the Year. Instead, they got second place (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2036683_2037118_2037102,00. html).

I don't have anything against Zuckerberg being named Person of the Year. I was going to make a "Social Network" reference but you beat me too it.

[troubledbyinsects]

All that matters is that it wasn't Glenn Beck.

[zachff]

If The Social Network hadn't come out this year Zuckerberg wouldn't have even been close.

I am not an "Assange Fanboy" but I think he would've been the best choice. Fuck the Tea Party, that's for sure.

[Theseventhson]

I don't think Assange should've won and I'm glad he didn't.

[Juan Jose]

Assange will probably win next year after all the nations embarrassed by the wikileaks documents try him for "treason" or whatever trumped up charges they decide to use

[deFobbed14yrs]

Glad Assange didn't win. Glad the tea party or glenn beck didn't win.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Keep in mind this title isn't suppose to reward the individual for their actions, but to recognize "the person who has done the most to influence the events of the world"

Hitler was the man of the year 1938

[saysmydoctor]

I don't think either Assange or Zuckerberg deserved it.

[GeeBee]

Keep in mind this title isn't suppose to reward the individual for their actions, but to recognize "the person who has done the most to influence the events of the world"

Hitler was the man of the year 1938
This. It's not meant to be a statement on how positive their contribution was.

[sammyboy516]

would have been cool if beck had gotten it. yeah, i like him. shoot me.

[Theseventhson]

would have been cool if beck had gotten it. yeah, i like him. shoot me.

You're so controversial, bro.

[Kozzy333]

I think Julian Assange deserved it. Oh well, it's some bullshit title anyways.

[Deadbolt23]

I think this is about right.

[Midget Pirates]

not a bad choice, certainly better than the time I won it.

[anamericangod]

Zuckerberg didn't deserve it. The fact that Hamid Karzai is one of the runners-up is disgusting.

[GeeBee]

Zuckerberg didn't deserve it. The fact that Hamid Karzai is one of the runners-up is disgusting.
Again...it's not something someone "deserves" or not. There's no denying the influence of either Zuckerberg or Karzai.

[zooyorker182]

If The Social Network hadn't come out this year Zuckerberg wouldn't have even been close.

I am not an "Assange Fanboy" but I think he would've been the best choice. Fuck the Tea Party, that's for sure.

definitely agree. the movie was good but not that amazing. whatever, people are retarded.

[Debut_Fin]

would have been cool if beck had gotten it. yeah, i like him. shoot me.

you deserve to be shot if this is a serious statement

he makes up facts on a daily basis and his fear-mongering is disgusting

even if you are a conservative, there is nothing to like about glenn beck

[saysmydoctor]

It should have been a Tea Party figure. Namely one of their financial backers.

If it's not about who deserves it and is about influence, I don't think anybody really competes with the person who is the money behind the astroturf affair that is the Tea Party.

[Theseventhson]

It should have been a Tea Party figure. Namely one of their financial backers.

If it's not about who deserves it and is about influence, I don't think anybody really competes with the person who is the money behind the astroturf affair that is the Tea Party.

Agreed

[saysmydoctor]

not a bad choice, certainly better than the time I won it.
Looking at what happened at that time, that award made a lot of sense.

[Jason Tate]

Again...it's not something someone "deserves" or not. There's no denying the influence of either Zuckerberg or Karzai.
This.

[Jake Denning]

Woooooooot

[WTG]

At least it wasn't another cop out with the "you!" like 2006.

[Debut_Fin]

At least it wasn't another cop out with the "you!" like 2006.

That was so ridiculous

[saysmydoctor]

Do people really think that was a cop out? Considering what was happening at that time in technology and social media and what not, the choice made a lot of sense.

It's been given to the American Woman, the American Soldier, the Computer--and several other abstracts. Jeez.

[anamericangod]

Again...it's not something someone "deserves" or not. There's no denying the influence of either Zuckerberg or Karzai.

You're right, there's no denying that Karzai is an incompetent, corrupt, failure of a leader whose inadequacy has influenced the Middle East in a negative way.

[GeeBee]

You're right, there's no denying that Karzai is an incompetent, corrupt, failure of a leader whose inadequacy has influenced the Middle East in a negative way.
Again...it's not an award. Influence for bad or good has gotten people named in Time since the inception of the magazine.

[Jason Tate]

Again...it's not an award. Influence for bad or good has gotten people named in Time since the inception of the magazine.
Stalin was named twice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Stalin was named twice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year

So was George W. Bush.

[troubledbyinsects]

pope john paul got it too

jk

but seriously

[saysmydoctor]

They gave it to Westmoreland and he was a pretty mediocre general.

[upthepunx]

Tom is shitting his pants

[rawspinner]

needs more weezy

[rollerman4221]

All that matters is that it wasn't Glenn Beck.

thisx100000000

[Regards]

I thought Hitler got it one year... Yup. '38.

[Theseventhson]

http://hipsterhitler.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Matter_of_Time.png

[Matt Chylak]

seems a bit retroactive.

[Clark]

Time's Person of the Year is not something that is "won." It is simply commentary on the most influential person on the year's events, whether their influence was either positive or negative. I would say that person is Assange, but one could make an argument for Zuckerberg.

[zion the lion]

How much did he honestly influence? A movie? Social networking was inevitable, if he didnt do it, there would still be myspace or friendster or whatever the hell else.

[Lueda Alia]

How much did he honestly influence? A movie? Social networking was inevitable, if he didnt do it, there would still be myspace or friendster or whatever the hell else.
That's irrelevant because the same argument could then be made about every single person that gets picked.

And are you serious about the part in bold? Maybe you don't have Facebook, but to deny its influence is just ridiculous. It has done more than just influence a "movie." If it wasn't that influential, there would have been no movie in the first place.

[Scrandon]

That's irrelevant because the same argument could then be made about every single person that gets picked.

And are you serious about the part in bold? Maybe you don't have Facebook, but to deny its influence is just ridiculous. It has done more than just influence a "movie." If it wasn't that influential, there would have been no movie in the first place.
It's supposed to be in this year though. Facebook was already huge in 2009.

[Lueda Alia]

It's supposed to be in this year though. Facebook was already huge in 2009.
But it's even bigger now. I think like 1/12th of the population has Facebook now, which is insane.

People weren't that shocked when someone didn't have Facbeook before, but if someone says that they don't have one now, they get strange looks. It's almost like you're expected to have Facebook if you use the internet. That speaks volumes.

[zion the lion]

That's irrelevant because the same argument could then be made about every single person that gets picked.

And are you serious about the part in bold? Maybe you don't have Facebook, but to deny its influence is just ridiculous. It has done more than just influence a "movie." If it wasn't that influential, there would have been no movie in the first place.

If Facebook wasnt around, there would be another social networking site that everyone would be using, and in a few years people will be on another site.

edit: and I've never gotten a weird look for not having a facebook.

[Lueda Alia]

If Facebook wasnt around, there would be another social networking site that everyone would be using, and in a few years people will be on another site.

edit: and I've never gotten a weird look for not having a facebook.
Again, that is irrelevant. I mean, if Columbus hadn't been around, someone else would have eventually discovered the same things that he did. That doesn't matter, though.

Anyway, what you're saying is not necessarily true. Plenty of other websites have been just as big, but not many achieve the same success that Facebook has. There's a reason for that.

[zion the lion]

Again, that is irrelevant. I mean, if Columbus hadn't been around, someone else would have eventually discovered the same things that he did. That doesn't matter, though.

Anyway, what you're saying is not necessarily true. Plenty of other websites have been just as big, but not many achieve the same success that Facebook has. There's a reason for that.

What's the reason?

[Scrandon]

Assange's work has serious implications regarding the role of the media and the way governments operate in the future.

[Lueda Alia]

Assange's work has serious implications regarding the role of the media and the way governments operate in the future.
Bingo.

As of now, I don't think a lot has changed because of WikiLeaks. But chances are that many things could possibly change in the future/next year, so it would make sense to feature him then. I mean, the media has talked about him a lot in the past couple of months, but how has he really influenced our lives at this point?

What's the reason?
For starters, they're better at doing what they do.

Look around on many big websites. You won't see as many other icons as there are Facebook ones. You can incorporate Facebook on so many sites nowadays.

I really don't know how you can even begin to claim that Facebook isn't influential.

[JuneJuly]

What does it matter the reason for the success of Facebook, and the influence of Zuckerberg. We know how he became successful, we know that he's influential. Not sure how anyone can argue that he isn't.

[zion the lion]

Bingo.

As of now, I don't think a lot has changed because of WikiLeaks. But chances are that many things could possibly change in the future/next year, so it would make sense to feature him then. I mean, the media has talked about him a lot in the past couple of months, but how has he really influenced our lives at this point?


For starters, they're better at doing what they do.

Look around on many big websites. You won't see as many other icons as there are Facebook ones. You can incorporate Facebook on so many sites nowadays.

I really don't know how you can even begin to claim that Facebook isn't influential.

The users are what made it influential, he made the site but he couldnt have honestly made it so big on his own. Maybe it's because I dont have a facebook but I dont see him as person of the year, especially years after the site was created. Has it made an impact? Yeah, hell, even my mom has a facebook page (add her) but thats not all his doing.

[Lueda Alia]

The users are what made it influential, he made the site but he couldnt have honestly made it so big on his own. Maybe it's because I dont have a facebook but I dont see him as person of the year, especially years after the site was created. Has it made an impact? Yeah, hell, even my mom has a facebook page (add her) but thats not all his doing.
Of course he couldn't have made it big on his own, but that's how it works. People can't be influential unless others follow them/their work; Mr.Zuckerberg is no different.

Your mom should be my friend.

[zion the lion]

Of course he couldn't have made it big on his own, but that's how it works. People can't be influential unless others follow them/their work; Mr.Zuckerberg is no different.

Your mom should be my friend.

I dont think he would have the same success if he decided tomorrow to make a movie site or a music site, which is what I think would make him actually influential.

If she figures out her password, I'm sure you'll be best facebook friends.

[Lueda Alia]

I dont think he would have the same success if he decided tomorrow to make a movie site or a music site, which is what I think would make him actually influential.

If she figures out her password, I'm sure you'll be best facebook friends.
The same could be said for Hitler, though. If he tried to achieve the same results tomorrow, he would never be able to. That doesn't really matter. He was influential. That's all that matters.

Oh. Bummer. :-(

[Hamlet]

But it's even bigger now. I think like 1/12th of the population has Facebook now, which is insane.

People weren't that shocked when someone didn't have Facbeook before, but if someone says that they don't have one now, they get strange looks. It's almost like you're expected to have Facebook if you use the internet. That speaks volumes.

Facebook is now what cellphones were in 2003. Back then, and still today, if you were going to function as a modern human being in the world, you HAD a cellphone, end of story. It was part of your personal, work, social life. It was as much a necessity as the clothes on your back, a tool to help you live your life.

And now, if you're online, you HAVE a Facebook, end of story. And everyone's online. It's the internet.

[iloveanimals]

I dont think he would have the same success if he decided tomorrow to make a movie site or a music site, which is what I think would make him actually influential.

If she figures out her password, I'm sure you'll be best facebook friends.

So I was lurking around AP and I found this thread. What is your thought process on this? If Mark Zuckerberg made Facebook and then made AP.net then would he be influential? or Rotten Tomatoes? What?

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

How much did he honestly influence? A movie? Social networking was inevitable, if he didnt do it, there would still be myspace or friendster or whatever the hell else.

I think the tipping points in the past year is that Facebook hit the 500 million member mark, the fact that Mark is a 26 year old billionaire, and his philanthropy efforts. The movie itself boosted his profile, even though most movie goers knew that wasn't an accurate depiction of his personality.

[Matt Chylak]

taking back my "retroactive" comment. the growth that site has had in the last year is ridiculous.

for comparison, AP.net has cultivated around 336,000 members right now (going off the stats list). facebook gets almost twice that many new users every day.

[Jason Tate]

The users are what made it influential, he made the site but he couldnt have honestly made it so big on his own. Maybe it's because I dont have a facebook but I dont see him as person of the year, especially years after the site was created. Has it made an impact? Yeah, hell, even my mom has a facebook page (add her) but thats not all his doing.
Why do you have to post in threads I read? You just make it worse.

[Jason Tate]

It's supposed to be in this year though. Facebook was already huge in 2009.
The growth rate this year pushed it from a large website to rivaling Google for the biggest website online (and surpassing it in various metrics).

[Jason Tate]

Assange's work has serious implications regarding the role of the media and the way governments operate in the future.
And Zuckerburgs work is how humans interact now and in the future.

Assange's website and leaks don't disseminate without Facebook.

[circletheworld]

I don't think either Assange or Zuckerberg deserved it.

he did start the most popular social network and he is a self made billionaire at a really young age. I think thats enough to be a person of the year.

[Nevuk]

Zuckerberg is very influential because of his attitude towards privacy. (That it doesn't exist).

[The Personist]

And Zuckerburgs work is how humans interact now and in the future.

Assange's website and leaks don't disseminate without Facebook.
Absolutely. Furthermore, I wouldn't really say wikileaks even mattered on a large scale until a couple weeks ago. Not to say it isn't important, but it's just a hot topic right now, whereas Facebook is pervasive.
Zuckerberg is very influential because of his attitude towards privacy. (That it doesn't exist).

Absolutely.

[*crying stars*]

Makes sense seeing how big his year has been. The next few years will be the age of Facebook.

[Live4TheKingdom]

Id agree with TIME. Facebook is a lot more than just a social network.

Why do you have to post in threads I read? You just make it worse.

unnecessary comment is unnecessary

[caveBEAR]

unnecessary comment is unnecessary

:popcorn:

[The Indigo]

If Facebook wasnt around, there would be another social networking site that everyone would be using, and in a few years people will be on another site.

edit: and I've never gotten a weird look for not having a facebook.
Facebook isn't just a social networking site like Myspace though. Its widespread appeal has practically made it the center of the internet. There are a lot of sites which you now sign up with through your facebook. Most websites have applications to make them compatible with facebook (including just about every other social networking site).

[VIVALAMATT]

Makes sense seeing how big his year has been. The next few years will be the age of Facebook.

How big has his year been? He got portrayed by Jesse Eisenberg (which he thinks was done wrongfully) and his website had privacy issues. I think he's had bigger years than 2010.

[VIVALAMATT]

Good article on Gizmodo (sorry if repost)

http://gizmodo.com/5713800/why-times-2010-person-of-the-year-means-nothing-in-2010

[Simulcast]

Good article on Gizmodo (sorry if repost)

http://gizmodo.com/5713800/why-times-2010-person-of-the-year-means-nothing-in-2010

The writers at Giz are just a bunch of whiners. I read that site religiously, but those guys are predictable and boring.

[VIVALAMATT]

The writers at Giz are just a bunch of whiners. I read that site religiously, but those guys are predictable and boring.

Yeah, they kinda are. They're also biased Apple fanboys which I shake my head at because I'm not an iPhone type of guy. They made some interesting points in the article though (at least imo).

Off topic: sick icon.

[Live4TheKingdom]

:popcorn:

Wasn't trying to start anything, his comment just seemed unprovoked.

Oh and I dont like you. Just so you know.

[mms13]

Zuckerburg winning is stupid. It's called Person of the Year...what has he done this year? Overseen some tiny website redesigns? Slowly sap privacy from millions of users? Been the subject of a pretty good movie portraying him as an asshole?

Look back over the past 5 years and he's been a pretty great figure but in 2010 he really hasn't done much. This sucks. Would rather it have gone to the god damn Chilean miners...

[The Personist]

BEERfortheBEAR (I don't remember your name/you never told me, maybe...idk) is a fucking awesome poster. He should be Man of the Year.

[caveBEAR]

Wasn't trying to start anything, his comment just seemed unprovoked.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, the guy with 97 posts is definitely the best choice to decide if comments from the owner of the site towards one of the more frustrating posters on the site is 'unprovoked'.

Oh and I dont like you. Just so you know.

I don't give a shit. All of your posts so far have irritated me, and if you liked me after the shit I've given you about them, well, that'd just be kinda sad.

-----

BEERfortheBEAR (I don't remember your name/you never told me, maybe...idk) is a fucking awesome poster. He should be Man of the Year.

:bow:

It's Sean, but Bear works fine, because Sean is saysmydoctors' name, too.

[jawstheme]

I'm confused about why anyone cares who Time calls Man of the Year.
I don't think Zuckerberg should get it just because now I can tell when my friends and 400 other people I've met once are doing their laundry. But then again, I don't care at all.

[troubledbyinsects]

Wasn't trying to start anything, his comment just seemed unprovoked.

Oh and I dont like you. Just so you know.
lol

[caveBEAR]

I can't believe a majority of this thread can't seem to get a grasp on the impact that Facebook has had over our lives. As well, 2010 is the year Zuckerburg gets Man of the Year because 2010 is the year everyone's grandma got on Facebook.

[Live4TheKingdom]

:rolleyes:

Yeah, the guy with 97 posts is definitely the best choice to decide if comments from the owner of the site towards one of the more frustrating posters on the site is 'unprovoked'.

I don't give a shit. All of your posts so far have irritated me, and if you liked me after the shit I've given you about them, well, that'd just be kinda sad.

I didnt realize that depending on my post count, my personal opinion, (yes opinion) has any less substance. Just because some one is "frustrating" doesnt give someone the right to be a dick, or whatever the case may be. We all have are opinions its life, lean to live with it.

[The Personist]

I didnt realize that depending on my post count, my personal opinion, (yes opinion) has any less substance. Just because some one is "frustrating" doesnt give someone the right to be a dick, or whatever the case may be. We all have are opinions its life, lean to live with it.

He isn't saying "you have less posts, so your opinion doesn't matter"; rather, he's saying "you haven't been around as long, so you don't understand the backstory impelling Jason's post."

[Live4TheKingdom]

He isn't saying "you have less posts, so your opinion doesn't matter"; rather, he's saying "you haven't been around as long, so you don't understand the backstory impelling Jason's post."

I post once a year.... yes ive been around for 96 years.

EDIT: also all im saying is that Jason could have been a little more "professional" and said nothing. But I must be wrong haha

[The Personist]

Facebook is down! Zuckerburg is proving how central he is to our lives; he's taking the day off to celebrate, and Facebook just ain't gonna run. Already all my friends are tweeting about it (funny how that happens).

[Simulcast]

Facebook is down! Zuckerburg is proving how central he is to our lives; he's taking the day off to celebrate, and Facebook just ain't gonna run. Already all my friends are tweeting about it (funny how that happens).

TWITTER DOESN'T MATTER. TWITTER DIDN'T CHANGE THE FACE OF GOVERNMENTS AND REARRANGE THE EARTH'S MAGNETIC PULL. ASSANGE DID THAT IN HIS SLEEP.


/gizmodo

[The Personist]

TWITTER DOESN'T MATTER. TWITTER DIDN'T CHANGE THE FACE OF GOVERNMENTS AND REARRANGE THE EARTH'S MAGNETIC PULL. ASSANGE DID THAT IN HIS SLEEP.


/gizmodo

HOW COME TOM WAS NEVER PERSON OF THE YEAR? POOR MYSPACE.

[Simulcast]

HOW COME TOM WAS NEVER PERSON OF THE YEAR? POOR MYSPACE.

Because he gave us the "Myspace Angle", otherwise known as the only other unforgivable sin.

[jawstheme]

I can't believe a majority of this thread can't seem to get a grasp on the impact that Facebook has had over our lives. As well, 2010 is the year Zuckerburg gets Man of the Year because 2010 is the year everyone's grandma got on Facebook.

Facebook seems to effect the superficial things in your life, nothing major or long term, such as rich, poor, political views, religious views, scientific discovery etc. Facebook will bring about fads and impact us in little ways, and yes it will definitely impact us on a large scale. I'm not saying the guy doesn't deserve the award, but if you don't care or haven't heard of Zuckerberg you really aren't missing anything too signifcant.

Really my point is that Time is kind of a worthless magazine anymore, and I could care less who their Man of the Year is. 2005 was Bono, and 2006 was You, whatever that means.

[The Personist]

Because he gave us the "Myspace Angle", otherwise known as the only other unforgivable sin.

The Myspace angle may have started with Myspace, but Zuckerberg made it so our grandmas had myspace angles with Facebook.

[*crying stars*]

How big has his year been? He got portrayed by Jesse Eisenberg (which he thinks was done wrongfully) and his website had privacy issues. I think he's had bigger years than 2010.

Yeah, a likely Oscar nominated film about the site is no big deal. Regardless of how factual the movie may or may not be, Zuckerberg has been in the news constantly this year, even moreso because of Eisenberg's portrayal. He's influenced how people interact in the world, he's brought to light issues such as personal privacy (again, doesn't matter if he's in violation, it's the fact that people are talking about it), he donated 100 million dollars to the New Jersey public school system, and he's freaking 26 and the youngest billionaire in the world.

In terms of growth and money making, perhaps he's had bigger years. But this one he's completely owned.

[The Indigo]

Zuckerburg winning is stupid. It's called Person of the Year...what has he done this year? Overseen some tiny website redesigns? Slowly sap privacy from millions of users? Been the subject of a pretty good movie portraying him as an asshole?

Look back over the past 5 years and he's been a pretty great figure but in 2010 he really hasn't done much. This sucks. Would rather it have gone to the god damn Chilean miners...
This was a huge year for facebook because it expanded outside of itself. Like I said before, it's basically the center of the internet, and the more the internet becomes an integral part of our lives, the more important facebook is. Outside of perhaps Google, there isn't a website I can think of that doesn't benefit in some way from facebook. I'm pretty sure if you ask Jason where most people click links to get to this site, outside of search engines, Facebook is probably #1.

[The Personist]

Facebook seems to effect the superficial things in your life, nothing major or long term, such as rich, poor, political views, religious views, scientific discovery etc. Facebook will bring about fads and impact us in little ways, and yes it will definitely impact us on a large scale. I'm not saying the guy doesn't deserve the award, but if you don't care or haven't heard of Zuckerberg you really aren't missing anything too signifcant.

Really my point is that Time is kind of a worthless magazine anymore, and I could care less who their Man of the Year is. 2005 was Bono, and 2006 was You, whatever that means.

I'd say Facebook's done more for us than Bono. I hate that guy. But anyway, I think you're incorrect about it not having longterm effects. I've made friends through Facebook--even found old ones with whom I rekindled a friendship--and have, in several cases, grown as a person and made sincere, lasting connections because of those friendships.

[caveBEAR]

I didnt realize that depending on my post count, my personal opinion, (yes opinion) has any less substance. Just because some one is "frustrating" doesnt give someone the right to be a dick, or whatever the case may be. We all have are opinions its life, lean to live with it.

:yawn:

I'm a dick. Ask the regulars. 'Lean to live with it'.

[jawstheme]

I'd say Facebook's done more for us than Bono. I hate that guy. But anyway, I think you're incorrect about it not having longterm effects. I've made friends through Facebook--even found old ones with whom I rekindled a friendship--and have, in several cases, grown as a person and made sincere, lasting connections because of those friendships.

Good point. I don't really have a problem with this going to Facebook, or Zuckerberg. He should change his name to Facebook for convenience in discussions.

[The Personist]

:yawn:

I'm a dick. Ask the regulars. 'Lean to live with it'.

And we love you for it!

[caveBEAR]

And we love you for it!

Ha ha, well, not all the regulars, I'm sure. The one's that matter, though.

[The Personist]

Good point. I don't really have a problem with this going to Facebook, or Zuckerberg. He should change his name to Facebook for convenience in discussions.

True fact! Plus, we're friends on facebook, so shut up.

[jawstheme]

True fact! Plus, we're friends on facebook, so shut up.

Haha. Case rested.

[The Personist]

Haha. Case rested.

GLAD WE AGREE THEN.

[VIVALAMATT]

Yeah, a likely Oscar nominated film about the site is no big deal. Regardless of how factual the movie may or may not be, Zuckerberg has been in the news constantly this year, even moreso because of Eisenberg's portrayal. He's influenced how people interact in the world, he's brought to light issues such as personal privacy (again, doesn't matter if he's in violation, it's the fact that people are talking about it), he donated 100 million dollars to the New Jersey public school system, and he's freaking 26 and the youngest billionaire in the world.

In terms of growth and money making, perhaps he's had bigger years. But this one he's completely owned.

Yes let's give him the title because a movie came out based on his life which he was absolutely against and had no role in the creation of it. He didn't intentionally bring light to the world of internet privacy, and the whole "interact with the world" thing is nothing that he wasn't doing in previous years.

I'm not saying he hasn't had a big year. Sure he has. But biggest? Come on. The title should've gone to Assange. If you disagree, that's fine. We all have our opinions.

[caveBEAR]

Assange is the man simply because he's conning girl after girl into fucking him without a condom.

[saysmydoctor]

he did start the most popular social network and he is a self made billionaire at a really young age. I think thats enough to be a person of the year.
Read. The. Whole. Thread.

[circletheworld]

Read. The. Whole. Thread.

Your. An. Ass.

See I can incorrectly use punctuation too. (I used is correctly there)

[The Personist]

You're*

[saysmydoctor]

Frankly, if Time was trying to note the importance of social media's influence, I feel like the selection of Biz Stone would have been a smarter choice.

[caveBEAR]

:lol:

[caveBEAR]

I feel like the selection of Biz Markie would have been a smarter choice.

Fixed. For everybody.

[saysmydoctor]

Your. An. Ass.

See I can incorrectly use punctuation too. (I used is correctly there)
I never said anything to the contrary. You obviously didn't read the whole thread. I justified why I believed Zuckerberg shouldn't have been given the title.

And it's not to deny Zuckerberg's influence.

Also, as David said: you're*

[Jason Tate]

Yes let's give him the title because a movie came out based on his life which he was absolutely against and had no role in the creation of it. He didn't intentionally bring light to the world of internet privacy, and the whole "interact with the world" thing is nothing that he wasn't doing in previous years.

I'm not saying he hasn't had a big year. Sure he has. But biggest? Come on. The title should've gone to Assange. If you disagree, that's fine. We all have our opinions.

The data proves you wrong on "previous years" - this year was ridiculous in growth and influence.

[Jason Tate]

Frankly, if Time was trying to note the importance of social media's influence, I feel like the selection of Biz Stone would have been a smarter choice.

If you wanted to pick someone with 15x less influence ...

[circletheworld]

I never said anything to the contrary. You obviously didn't read the whole thread. I justified why I believed Zuckerberg shouldn't have been given the title.

And it's not to deny Zuckerberg's influence.

Also, as David said: you're*

ugh... you're clearly right

[*crying stars*]

Assange is the man simply because he's conning girl after girl into fucking him without a condom.

Looks like he wouldn't have to do much conning to get men to do it too.

[zion the lion]

So I was lurking around AP and I found this thread. What is your thought process on this? If Mark Zuckerberg made Facebook and then made AP.net then would he be influential? or Rotten Tomatoes? What?

I'm saying he was lucky with facebook, if he tried to make another website I dont think he'd be as successful because I dont think he (himself, on his own) is that influential.

[caveBEAR]

Looks like he wouldn't have to do much conning to get men to do it too.

I don't get it...

[*crying stars*]

I don't get it...

With the amount of people who have been sucking his dick lately, it's only time until they take it to the next level...

[caveBEAR]

With the amount of people who have been sucking his dick lately, it's only time until they take it to the next level...

Oh. Gotcha. I'd say that's evened out though by the amount of people calling him a terrorist.
:shrug:

[*crying stars*]

Oh. Gotcha. I'd say that's evened out though by the amount of people calling him a terrorist.
:shrug:

True; he's not a terrorist, but I'm unsure if he's worthy of the amount of praise he's been getting. I have mixed feelings about Wikileaks in general.

[Jason Tate]

I'm saying he was lucky with facebook, if he tried to make another website I dont think he'd be as successful because I dont think he (himself, on his own) is that influential.
Success and influence are two different things. And when you are the world's youngest billionaire (and worth more than Steve Jobs) - you're influential by default.

[jawstheme]

Assange really shook things up though. I'd still go with Assange for this rather worthless title.

[VIVALAMATT]

The data proves you wrong on "previous years" - this year was ridiculous in growth and influence.

Even if it was Facebooks most productive year in terms of expansion, to award him Man of the Year just seems a bit much, imo. Like I said, he had a big year and I'm all for recognizing that. I just don't think it warrants the title.

[saysmydoctor]

If you wanted to pick someone with 15x less influence ...
:shrug:

I guess. I dunno, I feel like early this year, with Facebook redesigns and such, they were very reactive to the effects of Twitter. Maybe a better choice would be "The Person Who Tweets" but I consider Biz Stone to be pretty influential and personally, I have more respect for him over Zuckerberg.

I just don't like Zuckerberg. I'm not denying his influence at all, just eh. I find him to be arrogant in all the wrong ways.

[Jason Tate]

:shrug:

I guess. I dunno, I feel like early this year, with Facebook redesigns and such, they were very reactive to the effects of Twitter. Maybe a better choice would be "The Person Who Tweets" but I consider Biz Stone to be pretty influential and personally, I have more respect for him over Zuckerberg.

I just don't like Zuckerberg. I'm not denying his influence at all, just eh. I find him to be arrogant in all the wrong ways.
Twitter is a moth compared to Facebook. It's not even remotely close.

[Jason Tate]

Assange really shook things up though. I'd still go with Assange for this rather worthless title.
Assange had an impact in the past few months (eh, telling us lame shit most people already knew/assumed?) and it only resonated as far as it did because of the social world Zuckerburg created.

[saysmydoctor]

Twitter is a moth compared to Facebook. It's not even remotely close.
I gotta be honest: I think this is incredibly hyperbolic, at best.

[Jason Tate]

I gotta be honest: I think this is incredibly hyperbolic, at best.
175 million global users to 600 million users.

At 24 million U.S. unique visitors, that makes Twitter.com about the same size as Yelp, and smaller than LinkedIn (28.5 million) or the Huffington Post (26 million).

Facebook (152 million U.S. visitors) - estimated around 2 billion in sales revenue.

It's not even remotely hyperbolic. I gotta be honest: you don't know what you're talking about.

[J.C.]

Yeah, a likely Oscar nominated film about the site is no big deal. Regardless of how factual the movie may or may not be, Zuckerberg has been in the news constantly this year, even moreso because of Eisenberg's portrayal. He's influenced how people interact in the world, he's brought to light issues such as personal privacy (again, doesn't matter if he's in violation, it's the fact that people are talking about it), he donated 100 million dollars to the New Jersey public school system, and he's freaking 26 and the youngest billionaire in the world.

In terms of growth and money making, perhaps he's had bigger years. But this one he's completely owned.

if you love Eisenberg so much why don't you marry him

[*crying stars*]

if you love Eisenberg so much why don't you marry him

Are you jealous?
Well, you know what they say about Jews and Asians.

[The Indigo]

I'm saying he was lucky with facebook, if he tried to make another website I dont think he'd be as successful because I dont think he (himself, on his own) is that influential.
Doesn't matter. Che Guevara wasn't as successful in his post-Cuban revolutions. Doesn't take away from the accomplishment.

:shrug:

I guess. I dunno, I feel like early this year, with Facebook redesigns and such, they were very reactive to the effects of Twitter. Maybe a better choice would be "The Person Who Tweets" but I consider Biz Stone to be pretty influential and personally, I have more respect for him over Zuckerberg.

I just don't like Zuckerberg. I'm not denying his influence at all, just eh. I find him to be arrogant in all the wrong ways.
Twitter has had some interesting moments, but nothing compared to facebook.

[J.C.]

Are you jealous?
Well, you know what they say about Jews and Asians.

No, what do they say?

[caveBEAR]

No, what do they say?

They're short.

[Matt Chylak]

can someone explain to me some backstory to twitter or post a link to one? i don't really get it's influence besides (1) bringing us closer to influential people (usually them saying sometimes dumb, sometimes witty things) and (2) connecting us more directly due to its mobile functionality (which is arguably better than facebook's due to its simplicity).

but still, it's facebook's status update, turned into a whole site.

/aware this makes me look idiotic to some off the more judgmental people in here

[Lueda Alia]

I can't believe people don't think that Zuckerberg has been influential. Really?

[caveBEAR]

can someone explain to me some backstory to twitter or post a link to one? i don't really get it's influence besides (1) bringing us closer to influential people (usually them saying sometimes dumb, sometimes witty things) and (2) connecting us more directly due to its mobile functionality (which is arguably better than facebook's due to its simplicity).

but still, it's facebook's status update, turned into a whole site.

/aware this makes me look idiotic to some off the more judgmental people in here

Nah, it just makes you look like you've been on Twitter before. It's really fucking pointless.

[*crying stars*]

No, what do they say?

They're very compatible.
Aww, you're jelly.

[The Personist]

can someone explain to me some backstory to twitter or post a link to one? i don't really get it's influence besides (1) bringing us closer to influential people (usually them saying sometimes dumb, sometimes witty things) and (2) connecting us more directly due to its mobile functionality (which is arguably better than facebook's due to its simplicity).

but still, it's facebook's status update, turned into a whole site.

/aware this makes me look idiotic to some off the more judgmental people in here

GTFO, BITCH.

:buddies:

Anyway, the guy who founded Twitter should win because without him we would not have Kanye West's tweets.

[The Indigo]

can someone explain to me some backstory to twitter or post a link to one? i don't really get it's influence besides (1) bringing us closer to influential people (usually them saying sometimes dumb, sometimes witty things) and (2) connecting us more directly due to its mobile functionality (which is arguably better than facebook's due to its simplicity).

but still, it's facebook's status update, turned into a whole site.

/aware this makes me look idiotic to some off the more judgmental people in here
The interesting thing about Twitter is the trending topics, in my opinion. It's a fascinating way to gauge what is being talked about most by people around the world. Also, is really pioneered a lot of the mobile functionality that is now common place in social networking. Because the site's main functions can be done entirely through SMS messaging, it's much more difficult for nations that suppress free speech to keep a handle on it.

Relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_Internet_during_2009_Ir anian_election_protests

[saysmydoctor]

The interesting thing about Twitter is the trending topics, in my opinion. It's a fascinating way to gauge what is being talked about most by people around the world. Also, is really pioneered a lot of the mobile functionality that is now common place in social networking. Because the site's main functions can be done entirely through SMS messaging, it's much more difficult for nations that suppress free speech to keep a handle on it.

Relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_Internet_during_2009_Ir anian_election_protests
Yeah, moths really.

[caveBEAR]

Yeah, moths really.

I almost said something about that when I said Twitter was pointless, and while I do think the impact that Twitter had on the protests (and other events in the year(s) past), I think those have been more localized than the 'everywhere, all the time' that Facebook has morphed into.

I also agree that Kanye's tweets make it all worth it.

[narcoleptic953]

How much did he honestly influence? A movie? Social networking was inevitable, if he didnt do it, there would still be myspace or friendster or whatever the hell else.

The "if he didn't do it, someone else would have" argument could be used for just about any innovation or influence that you could think of. The fact still remains that he DID do it, and that's all that's relevant.

[Matt Chylak]

GTFO, BITCH.

:buddies:

Anyway, the guy who founded Twitter should win because without him we would not have Kanye West's tweets.

best answer off the three i got.

[saysmydoctor]

I almost said something about that when I said Twitter was pointless, and while I do think the impact that Twitter had on the protests (and other events in the year(s) past), I think those have been more localized than the 'everywhere, all the time' that Facebook has morphed into.

I also agree that Kanye's tweets make it all worth it.
There was when it crashed when Michael Jackson died. The night Obama won. The rallies. And Iran discussion wasn't local. It was global discussion, with people tweeting their support for the protesters.

That's also why I corrected myself and said "The Person Who Tweets." I can admit Biz Stone does not have the influence compared to Zuckerberg.

[Scrandon]

I'm saying he was lucky with facebook, if he tried to make another website I dont think he'd be as successful because I dont think he (himself, on his own) is that influential.
What? Why do you...? You still don't understand what influential means even though nearly every post directed at you in this thread has attempted to clarify that simple definition for you. Also, why do you feel the need to go about comparing the different amounts of luck that people have had in creating things?

[zion the lion]

What? Why do you...? You still don't understand what influential means even though nearly every post directed at you in this thread has attempted to clarify that simple definition for you. Also, why do you feel the need to go about comparing the different amounts of luck that people have had in creating things?

Did you happen to get stuck in a time machine and go back to yesterday when I was actually posting in this thread? I dont think he was the most influential person of the year, I think there are other people who should have been named person of the year. End of story. Got it?

[caveBEAR]

:yawn:

[Scrandon]

Did you happen to get stuck in a time machine and go back to yesterday when I was actually posting in this thread? I dont think he was the most influential person of the year, I think there are other people who should have been named person of the year. End of story. Got it?

02:22 PM on 12/16/10 - what? I think the people who you think Time should think of as the Person of the Year are too lucky.

[zion the lion]

02:22 PM on 12/16/10 - what? I think the people who you think Time should think of as the Person of the Year are too lucky.

What was the point of telling me the time that I last posted in this thread and then saying your own thing next to it?

[Scrandon]

What was the point of telling me the time that I last posted in this thread and then saying your own thing next to it?
To show you that I quoted your post from earlier today - no time machine needed. Anyway, I'm bored, run along now.

[zion the lion]

To show you that I quoted your post from earlier today - no time machine needed. Anyway, I'm bored, run along now.

Oh, my bad, I forgot that I posted in here once in between naps. If only that evidence made me magically change my mind and think he totally deserved that person of the year over everyone else. You totally got me.

[jawstheme]

I can't believe people don't think that Zuckerberg has been influential. Really?

Who's saying that? People aren't saying he isn't influencing other people, just that the things he is influencing aren't as important, or influential as other people. Either way the whole thing is somewhat subjective and this Time Magazine thing is pretty stupid to argue about.
But don't act like if we aren't saying that Zuckerberg isn't influential at all, that's just kind of hyperbole.

[jawstheme]

Assange had an impact in the past few months (eh, telling us lame shit most people already knew/assumed?) and it only resonated as far as it did because of the social world Zuckerburg created.

It resonated because of the vastness of the internet, not because of Facebook. It would have resonated anyway, especailly considering most of the support for Assange comes from outside the US.

[The Personist]

Facebook is international...

[Lueda Alia]

Who's saying that? People aren't saying he isn't influencing other people, just that the things he is influencing aren't as important, or influential as other people. Either way the whole thing is somewhat subjective and this Time Magazine thing is pretty stupid to argue about.
But don't act like if we aren't saying that Zuckerberg isn't influential at all, that's just kind of hyperbole.
No, it isn't a hyperbole. Read the posts.

[Jason Tate]

It resonated because of the vastness of the internet, not because of Facebook. It would have resonated anyway, especailly considering most of the support for Assange comes from outside the US.
70% of Facebook users are outside the United States. The "social sharing" that Facebook has made possible transcends even email now.

[Jason Tate]

Yeah, moths really.
Facts: 85.3% of Twitter users update less than once/day. 21% of users have never posted a Twee. 93.6% of users have less than 100 followers, while 92.4% follow less than 100 people. 5% of Twitter users account for 75% of all activity. ~50 million tweets per day.

Facebook?

More than 30 billion pieces of content (web links, news stories, blog posts, notes, photo albums, etc.) shared each month. About 70% of Facebook users are outside the United States. People spend over 700 billion minutes per month on Facebook. Average user has 130 friends. 50% of active users log on to Facebook in any given day. ~125 million status updates per day.

It's not even close.

[Nevuk]

Gizmodo is pretty terrible. (They're the ones with Gawker, right? They are terrible human beings.)

[Jason Tate]

Gizmodo is pretty terrible. (They're the ones with Gawker, right? They are terrible human beings.)
Yes. Haha, which I would hope means they didn't mention the word privacy in their article

[Nevuk]

Yes. Haha, which I would hope means they didn't mention the word privacy in their article
That whole thing at CES i think where they took universal remote controls in to mess with people's presentations was really stupid. The other thing is that they released the name of the apple guy who just got drunk and lost his iphone - there wasn't any reason at all to do that, it's not like it got them more money.

[Jason Tate]

That whole thing at CES i think where they took universal remote controls in to mess with people's presentations was really stupid. The other thing is that they released the name of the apple guy who just got drunk and lost his iphone - there wasn't any reason at all to do that, it's not like it got them more money.
That's fucked up.

Well, that and the fact that the entire Gawker database got hacked last week (http://www.mediaite.com/online/gawker-medias-entire-commenter-database-appears-to-have-been-hacked/) - all the emails/sourcecode/passwords leaked. Haha.

[Nevuk]

That's fucked up.

Well, that and the fact that the entire Gawker database got hacked last week (http://www.mediaite.com/online/gawker-medias-entire-commenter-database-appears-to-have-been-hacked/) - all the emails/sourcecode/passwords leaked. Haha.
Yes. They didn't bother to salt the passwords so they're basically in plain text.