StoutFiles - 8:14 pm on Dec 20, 2010 (gmt 0) [edited by: StoutFiles at 8:18 pm (utc) on Dec 20, 2010]
OK, Assange--who many believe should have received the "honor" instead--is a successful webmaster as well. So, don't ignore it and the point is the same.
A reader poll gave Assange 80% of the vote. He was the real person of the year, but TIME gave it to someone who's doesn't have a negative aura around him, which shows how far TIME has fallen. I mean, Hitler won the award at one point. Should we give it to the guy who continues to run his social website better than MySpace or the guy who, just this year, has the world's govt's flipping out about their data?
A measure of.. what? Nothing. It was almost oddball distinction before and remains so. But, your points, taken together, make my point: The web continues to hold opportunity for innovation.
It means that TIME seems to have discovered Facebook when the movie came out. My grandma discovered Facebook before TIME did. "Oh, there's a website called Facebook and has HOW many members? This internet thing might be huge!"
Zuckerberg was a bigger deal last year, and the year before. It means that TIME is so behind the times that their "award" is meaningless.
[edited by: StoutFiles at 8:18 pm (utc) on Dec 20, 2010]