Time Magazine names Mark Zuckerberg Person of the Year

By on December 15, 2010, 11:00 AM
Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates must have got the memo by now: there's a new geek kid in town. Time Magazine has selected Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg as its Person of the Year. Time's reasoning is as follows: "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, Mark Elliot Zuckerberg is TIME's 2010 Person of the Year."

Zuckerberg has accomplished quite a lot in 2010. He made sure that Facebook became the biggest social network, not to mention one of the most exciting Internet companies to work at. Facebook also managed pass the 500 million user mark this year, 200 million of which use the mobile version.

His company aside, Zuckerberg is also one of the world's youngest billionaires. He is also among 17 US billionaires that recently took the "Giving Pledge" to donate the majority of their wealth to charity, a project launched this year by the two richest Americans, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.

As always, not everyone agrees with the choice. Do you think Zuckerberg deserves the title or would have you chosen someone else for Person of the Year?





User Comments: 47

Got something to say? Post a comment
TomSEA TomSEA, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I think it's absurd that he was picked for "Person of the Year." I mean, the guy put together a single, simple, social application and it happened to take off. It could have just as easily failed. There's nothing innovative or technologically advanced about it. In five years (or less) Facebook will be replaced by something else just like MySpace.

I'm thinking the voters at Time are too easily impressed by flashing lights and shiny things.

veedubguy said:

I have to agree with Tom on this one... It might take some time, but Facebook will not be here forever...

mattfrompa mattfrompa said:

What an ugly dude...and poor choice.

Wendig0 Wendig0, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Tom nailed it. Zuckerberg is one of the last people I would consider for Time's person of the year, but as Tom mentioned... Shiny things.

lawfer, TechSpot Paladin, said:

God, that guy is ugly.

And I agree with TomSEA, it's just a matter time...

Neojt said:

Also might be a good thing to mention that this wasn't really his idea..

wcbert said:

Facebook has only been a success because of moblie phones, without it you would have to wait to get home for your FB updates on your PC/Mac.

Sorry Time a poor choice for person of the year.

Decimae said:

The voters picked Assange. And I agree. He already has more influence then Zuckenburg imo, since many news sites have a dedicated "wikileaks" part.

bakape said:

This was solely an editor's pick. I'm not seeing much of FB here, but perhaps it's everything that ever was and will be for the American society, perhaps. Must agree this sounds no more hot than 3D TV and will fade away just as any other fad.

gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Assange is good about promoting himself. Manning is the one who obtained the data, Assange just posted it on a web site. It's just about his ego, not about anything else. Why is it so surprising that a kid from a f'd up background wants everyone to talk about him and what he's doing? News organizations love Wikileaks cause they have something to report on. Just because something is in the news does not mean that most people really care about it, the media is just as self serving as any corporation, like Assange, truth is not their motive.

Zuckerberg's actions on Facebook affect far more people. All those privacy changes, selling of data, etc. That has profound implications not only on people's lives, but on how the web is governed, the laws that are passed, etc.

wcbert said:

gwailo247 said:

Zuckerberg's actions on Facebook affect far more people. All those privacy changes, selling of data, etc. That has profound implications not only on people's lives, but on how the web is governed, the laws that are passed, etc.

Only in certain countries where its population is using Facebook. Assange's actions have a global reach and have and will in the future affect how countries interact with each other. I was watching a new's talk program and it was said people will in the future write down less information making historian job much more diffcult to uncover the truth.

Benny26 Benny26, TechSpot Paladin, said:

He does look abit on the "I need my 50 billion to get women to sleep with me" side in the photo...

Prosercunus said:

This is Time magazine we are talking about. I am pretty sure their reader base is dwindling and their legitimate status as a news magazine was lost years ago.

Wagan8r Wagan8r said:

Oh, man. They picked the wrong person! Obama should have gotten it! I mean, he won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing last year, so he should have been a shoo-in for 2010 Person of the Year! The racists...

bakape said:

He does look abit on the "I need my 50 billion to get women to sleep with me" side in the photo...

Good point! o.0

Guest said:

That is the cover I needed to proft aliens are already invading us.

gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

wcbert said:

Only in certain countries where its population is using Facebook. Assange's actions have a global reach and have and will in the future affect how countries interact with each other. I was watching a new's talk program and it was said people will in the future write down less information making historian job much more diffcult to uncover the truth.

Outside of China, if they have computers they're using Facebook.

Assange's actions are only relevant in that he's proven what we all know. If you read unclassified documents from WW2, there is also a lot of stuff in them that would have shocked the average citizen of the US at the time. And the stuff in the diplomatic cables wasn't really that big of a surprise. What's the next revelation, that professional athletes sleep with a lot of women?

The real reason everyone is talking about Assange is that he can't keep his **** in his pants. People are hardly talking about the cables anymore, they're just focusing on him, which was probably his motivation all along. When you remove the hype and the media, he hasn't really done all that much.

Guest said:

TomSEA hit the nail on the head.

DokkRokken said:

mattfrompa said:

What an ugly dude...and poor choice.

Benny26 said:

He does look abit on the "I need my 50 billion to get women to sleep with me" side in the photo...

This guy is obviously far uglier than the typically chisel-jawed, broad-shouldered, blonde-maned TechSpot commenter.

Decimae said:

The voters picked Assange. And I agree. He already has more influence then Zuckenburg imo, since many news sites have a dedicated "wikileaks" part.

Many more news sites have Facebook 'friending' links, and Twitter feeds.

I don't even use Facebook, but this is a good pick. Over five-hundred million people use the service. My country's population is thirty-three million, and just under half of our citizenry use Facebook. If somebody thinks that is somehow insignificant, then I don't think they're accounting for the societal changes that are occurring, for better or for worse.

Benny26 Benny26, TechSpot Paladin, said:

DokkRokken said:

This guy is obviously far uglier than the typically chisel-jawed, broad-shouldered, blonde-maned TechSpot commenter.

Oh of course. I'm sure we would all upload photos of our selfs if we didn't think the Techspot website would explode due to the intoxicating good looks we hold...Well, thats my reason anyway

DokkRokken said:

My country's population is thirty-three million

What!, in Canada with all that room?...Look at us in the UK. 61 million people all jammed in like sardines..lol.

lchu12 lchu12 said:

Is there anyone that "should" get the Person of the Year, that actually did something worthwhile and that we can all agree more or less to some degree to get this award?!!?!?

Cause I can't think of anyone at all....

PanicX PanicX, TechSpot Ambassador, said:

gwailo247 said:

Outside of China, if they have computers they're using Facebook.

Assange's actions are only relevant in that he's proven what we all know. If you read unclassified documents from WW2, there is also a lot of stuff in them that would have shocked the average citizen of the US at the time. And the stuff in the diplomatic cables wasn't really that big of a surprise. What's the next revelation, that professional athletes sleep with a lot of women?

Is that why US military personnel face court marshal for viewing Wikileaks?

Have you heard of the Geneva Conventions? The atrocities enacted in WW2 lead to international agreements on wartime behavior. But we all know that the US military has nothing to hide right.

gwailo247 said:

The real reason everyone is talking about Assange is that he can't keep his **** in his pants. People are hardly talking about the cables anymore, they're just focusing on him, which was probably his motivation all along. When you remove the hype and the media, he hasn't really done all that much.

This isn't TMZ reporting on Assange, its reputable world news organizations. They're reporting this because it shows how far the US government has gone into a big brother controlling nanny state and how its reach an influence can extend beyond its borders.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

What!, in Canada with all that room?...Look at us in the UK. 61 million people all jammed in like sardines..lol.
I guess it's better to have a good snog than to suffer through yet another season of, "Doctor Who"? Trying to avoid that seems like it could lead to overpopulation issues.

Benny, is the Leed's Ballroom still standing? (The one The Who made their, "Live at Leeds" album from).

gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Is that why US military personnel face court marshal for viewing Wikileaks?

Not sure how that relates to my post. That Wikileaks has an impact on US soldiers? How does that relate to the rest of the country?

Have you heard of the Geneva Conventions? The atrocities enacted in WW2 lead to international agreements on wartime behavior. But we all know that the US military has nothing to hide right.

Not quite sure about your tangent here. I was referring to various political cables regarding things such as the Atlantic Charter or the Tehran Conference. Not sure which atrocities you're referring to?

This isn't TMZ reporting on Assange, its reputable world news organizations. They're reporting this because it shows how far the US government has gone into a big brother controlling nanny state and how its reach an influence can extend beyond its borders.

I guess the difference between you and me is that nothing in those cables surprised me. I supposed I don't feel the same sense of betrayal, I never had any mythologized views about America being "good guys", just human beings with all the merits and faults particular to our species.

Whistleblowers were Time's Person of the year a few years ago, so I don't think they have any particular bias here. Assange's Q profile scored when he became accused of rape. If he beat up an old grandma nobody would care, but rape two women, that's salacious!

If they named WikiLeaks as "person" of the year I would not argue with you, but to give this egocentric *** any more fuel for his antics would be a bad idea. The cause he has latched onto is just, he's a self serving egotist. He probably would move Hanging With Mr. Cooper to the top of everyone's Netflix queue if that meant that people kept talking about him.

Why is it that rich and privileged people like Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian feel the need to put out a sex tape? To be talked about. Assange wants to be talked about, he's just using a more socially acceptable way to do it, especially in today's anti-American climate. And he's clever enough to know that if he does something perceived as noble in his quest for fame, he can deflect all other accusations against his motives.

Benny26 Benny26, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I guess it's better to have a good snog than to suffer through yet another season of, "Doctor Who"? Trying to avoid that seems like it could lead to overpopulation issues.

Benny, is the Leed's Ballroom still standing? (The one The Who made their, "Live at Leeds" album from).

I can't stand "Doctor Who"?. Just thinking about it makes me feel sick.

Ahh yes, the Live at leed's album from The Who, one of the best of all time that one matey....They recorded it at Leed's university (refectory) which still stands, yes.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Why is it that rich and privileged people like Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian feel the need to put out a sex tape? To be talked about. .

Wow, how far would you have to back out of that smut, to fit Kim Kardashian's entire backside in the shot?

And then there would have to be a guy in the foley pit with a toilet plunger.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

If you read unclassified documents from WW2, there is also a lot of stuff in them that would have shocked the average citizen of the US at the time. And the stuff in the diplomatic cables wasn't really that big of a surprise.

Agreed....to a degree. Assange is a self-serving attention w***e. Wikileaks "selective morality" has been under scrutiny for some time.

As for surprises, or lack of, some are larger than others...such as U.S. Government pardoning men who unleashed the bubonic plague on an unsuspecting country -along with the no small matters of deliberately infecting people with gangrene, vivisecting them without anaesthesia and testing flame thrower/grenade effectiveness on bound prisoners

[link]

Probably fair to say that if this information had come to light at the time then Doug MacArthur and the Truman administration might both have been viewed somewhat differently.

As for Mr.Facebook....well, Time haven't always picked a winner...sometimes not even close.

Wow, how far would you have to back out of that smut, to fit Kim Kardashian's entire backside in the shot?

I knew this was being developed for a reason!

gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Wow, how far would you have to back out of that smut, to fit Kim Kardashian's entire backside in the shot?

This should do the trick:

http://www.gigapansystems.com/

PanicX PanicX, TechSpot Ambassador, said:

Unless I misunderstand what your post means, I'm pretty sure my reply should stand on its own, but I'll walk you through it, just in case.

Not sure how that relates to my post. That Wikileaks has an impact on US soldiers? How does that relate to the rest of the country?

Basically, in your post, you're asserting that Assange has had no meaningful impact and would be a be a poor candidate for Time's man of the year.

My comment is pointing out that Wikileaks contribution is so impactful that its actually changed US Military recruiting policy and implemented grounds for court marshal should active personnel read it. How does government censorship policy not affect the rest of the country? Would you argue that US military policy doesn't affect the rest of the world?

Not quite sure about your tangent here. I was referring to various political cables regarding things such as the Atlantic Charter or the Tehran Conference. Not sure which atrocities you're referring to?

As pointed out by DivideByZero, there's many heinous acts that called an accord of international conference to change the rules of war. These obviously significant events don't occur as a random whimsy. Wikileaks has the potential to affect international laws in much the same way, which I believe is more important than being able to wish happy birthday, impersonally, to a friend in middle school.

I guess the difference between you and me is that nothing in those cables surprised me. I supposed I don't feel the same sense of betrayal, I never had any mythologized views about America being "good guys", just human beings with all the merits and faults particular to our species.

Please don't put words in my mouth by implying my views are mythical and I feel Americans are the "good guys". Surprise or lack there of is not the issue here. It's the ability to make public the cover ups and indiscretions of those with power. The fact that we are just human beings and inclined to fault is all the more reason why Wikileaks and other checks and balances are so necessary and important.

Whistleblowers were Time's Person of the year a few years ago, so I don't think they have any particular bias here. Assange's Q profile scored when he became accused of rape. If he beat up an old grandma nobody would care, but rape two women, that's salacious!

This is the most disappointing part of your post. You're blatantly lying and slandering Assange. He did not force sex upon anyone. During consensual intercourse his condom broke, in Sweden it may be a crime if a condom comes off during consensual relations.

Your comments here show a clear bias against Assange and draw into question any merit in your previous posts.

If they named WikiLeaks as "person" of the year I would not argue with you, but to give this egocentric *** any more fuel for his antics would be a bad idea. The cause he has latched onto is just, he's a self serving egotist. He probably would move Hanging With Mr. Cooper to the top of everyone's Netflix queue if that meant that people kept talking about him.

Why is it that rich and privileged people like Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian feel the need to put out a sex tape? To be talked about. Assange wants to be talked about, he's just using a more socially acceptable way to do it, especially in today's anti-American climate. And he's clever enough to know that if he does something perceived as noble in his quest for fame, he can deflect all other accusations against his motives.

I'd like to know what you're basing these comments on. By Assange's antics, are you referring to the release of a military video showing the killing of innocent civilian reporters and subsequent flee from American authorities? The attempts of American authorities to arrest and extradite Assange? Perhaps the need for Assange to encrypt and distribute further damning evidence in an attempt to protect himself from assassination?

Well I guess until a movie* is made about his exploits he won't be as cool as Mark Zuckerberg in your eyes.

*A Social Network

tengeta tengeta said:

This would be the equivalent of putting the creator of MySpace on TIME in 2006. Ridiculous to see society has fallen that rapidly in just 4 years.

gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Basically, in your post, you're asserting that Assange has had no meaningful impact and would be a be a poor candidate for Time's man of the year.

My comment is pointing out that Wikileaks contribution is so impactful that its actually changed US Military recruiting policy and implemented grounds for court marshal should active personnel read it. How does government censorship policy not affect the rest of the country? Would you argue that US military policy doesn't affect the rest of the world?

Yes, I think he would be a poor candidate. The web site he started has had a meaningful impact, he has not. He has been more of a detriment to "his" cause than a boon. Wikileaks could have been a useful tool, but his arrogance is going to get it shut down.

As pointed out by DivideByZero, there's many heinous acts that called an accord of international conference to change the rules of war. These obviously significant events don't occur as a random whimsy. Wikileaks has the potential to affect international laws in much the same way, which I believe is more important than being able to wish happy birthday, impersonally, to a friend in middle school.

If anything the conduct of soldiers in Iraq has been under more scrutiny than any other conflict in history. The acts of the SS or the NKVD have brought about changes in international law, not a US chopper pilot. You're blowing the impact of that video way out of proportion. After Mai Ly, etc, how is that going to make people even more outraged? BTW you notice how you keep using Wikileaks in your posts instead of Assange, you're proving my point.

Please don't put words in my mouth by implying my views are mythical and I feel Americans are the "good guys". Surprise or lack there of is not the issue here. It's the ability to make public the cover ups and indiscretions of those with power. The fact that we are just human beings and inclined to fault is all the more reason why Wikileaks and other checks and balances are so necessary and important.

My point was that there was nothing that shocking in those cables. Only the most naive of people would really be shocked at their content, and IMO those are people who have a mythologized view of America. If you were surprised at what you saw then in my opinion you are naive. So their impact is not as great as you would make it out to be.

This is the most disappointing part of your post. You're blatantly lying and slandering Assange. He did not force sex upon anyone. During consensual intercourse his condom broke, in Sweden it may be a crime if a condom comes off during consensual relations.

Were you in the room? According to the mainstream news I read, one woman asked him to put on a condom and he refused (which can be considered rape by some people) and the other was asleep when he had sex with her (which is definitely rape). Now if you'd like to point me to other web sites I would gladly read their version. So I am not lying and slandering, I am repeating things I've read on BBC and CNN. If they're wrong, take it up with them.

Your comments here show a clear bias against Assange and draw into question any merit in your previous posts.

If we were talking I'd be wondering how you could keep a straight face and say those words. Yeah I don't like Assange. I think he's some kid with a screwed up childhood who wants attention and doesn't care how he gets it. But talk about not being objective, take another look at your post. You write like he's your best friend. Have you met him? Do you know him? Or are you just idealizing him because he has championed a cause that you believe in (hm...maybe that was his idea all along).

I don't have a problem with WikiLeaks, I have a problem with him. My reasons are valid enough, and I'm not in the minority. If anything related to this situation should be Person of the Year, it should be the web site.

By Assange's antics, are you referring to the release of a military video showing the killing of innocent civilian reporters and subsequent flee from American authorities? The attempts of American authorities to arrest and extradite Assange? Perhaps the need for Assange to encrypt and distribute further damning evidence in an attempt to protect himself from assassination?

Are you referring to the edited version of the video he released or the full one. If you're gonna leak stuff, leak it all, not just the portion that suits you.

By his antics I mean the way he has been acting. He's making it about him, not the site. Why does he keep such tight control of the site and the information? Why are people starting a rival site? And spare me this martyr stuff, if anyone really wanted him to be dead he'd be dead.

Guest said:

My god this guy looks reptilian LOL, LOOK INTO HIS EYES haha, and who the hell would want obama on the Time magazine its bad enough he got noble peace prize, talk about corrupt government

PanicX PanicX, TechSpot Ambassador, said:

BTW you notice how you keep using Wikileaks in your posts instead of Assange, you're proving my point.

Thats odd, how is Assange's relationship to Wikileaks different than Zuckerbergs to Facebook. If you exclude Facebook from Zuckerbergs accomplishments, would he merit the title?

Were you in the room? According to the mainstream news I read, one woman asked him to put on a condom and he refused (which can be considered rape by some people) and the other was asleep when he had sex with her (which is definitely rape). Now if you'd like to point me to other web sites I would gladly read their version. So I am not lying and slandering, I am repeating things I've read on BBC and CNN. If they're wrong, take it up with them.

Hmm.. it appears the story I've based my opinion on has been superseded, and he's actually being charged, when he previously wasn't.

[link]

This bbc article dated after the above still claims he's not formally charged.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652

"Under Swedish law, Mr Assange has not been formally charged. He has merely been accused and told he has questions to answer."

But in any case, he's guilty until proven innocent, right?

You write like he's your best friend. Have you met him? Do you know him? Or are you just idealizing him because he has championed a cause that you believe in (hm...maybe that was his idea all along).

We are not BFF's, nor do I know if he is a good person at heart. But I do believe in the cause he's championed and I also believe he's taken great risks to himself to continue with that cause. I hope that he's not guilty of sexual crimes and certainly wouldn't think him "Man of the Year" if he did rape 2 women.

Are you referring to the edited version of the video he released or the full one. If you're gonna leak stuff, leak it all, not just the portion that suits you.
I saw several versions of the video, I can't be positive I saw every version, but in each version 2 innocent reporters were killed. Do you know of one where none were?

By his antics I mean the way he has been acting. He's making it about him, not the site. Why does he keep such tight control of the site and the information? Why are people starting a rival site? And spare me this martyr stuff, if anyone really wanted him to be dead he'd be dead.

You really believe that you can run a whistle blowing website without risk to yourself? I think its naive to believe that. There's no martyr stuff, yet. There's lots of people on the US "kill list" that are still not dead.

Ssendi said:

What can we say, yes we all agree that SIMPLE SCRIPTS made him the facebook. But then whathas been the extent to the growth of this fb vibe!!! Millions of people around the globe!!!

He deserved the award from Time magazine!!!

Guest said:

lol. stop trying to sound so smart. if you don't think Facebook this year isn't the single hottest thing on the planet your blind. who cares if it will be replaced in 5 years. its just this years most influential person. not 5 years from now.

i'm not counting wiki links cuz that is terrorism and will result in the deaths of thousands of people around the world. free speech is one thing. inciting violence world wide isn't a good thing.

Guest said:

When I read the article title, I could actually FEEL my mind reel further away from integration with mainstream society. My neighborhood waste management crew deserves this award more than Zuckerberg.

They have diametrically opposed jobs, when you think about it.

When I see Zuckerberg on the cover of time, I'm just reminded of why I don't read time, and why I don't have a facebook account, and why I don't watch television or shop at malls. Society embraces an increasingly ludicrous cascade of disillusioned nonsense and you won't see me chatting it up with Zuck on the way down.

I really have to fight sounding conceited or myopic, but is everyone out there retarded?

Xclusiveitalian Xclusiveitalian said:

Well The Times doesn't always pick the right person, Adolf Hitler won Times person of the year, as well as Joseph Stalin twice, and both combined probably resulted in the death of more then a 100 million people, not to draw a connection to the facebook creator, i'm sure he isn't a a murderous dictator. But on a side note I feel they just pick anyone that just at the current moment is interesting. Facebook is huge now but will die just as myspace did and fade into obscurity. If you look here(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year) it lists all the winners, and looking back yo can say, "what were they thinking?" Interesting to note it also says "Julian Assange got more votes" lol

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

... it lists all the winners, and looking back yo can say, "what were they thinking?" Interesting to note it also says "Julian Assange got more votes" lol

Wikileaks probably hacked the Time site!

Guest said:

WOW... i have lost all respect for Time magazine.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

WOW... i have lost all respect for Time magazine.
Oh, that's cold. I used to read my father's time magazine in the bathroom during my formative years. It turned me into the attitude that stands before you today.

Guest said:

@captaincranky

I dont know what your attitude is today.

P.S.

Mother Teressa was on TIme magazine. What does she have in common with Zuckerberg?? Not a darn thing and neither one of them will have anything in common.

Point is; Zuckerberg has done nothing to become a person of the year to land his face on the cover of Time magazine.

Benny26 Benny26, TechSpot Paladin, said:

@captaincranky

I dont know what your attitude is today.

P.S.

Mother Teressa was on TIme magazine. What does she have in common with Zuckerberg?? Not a darn thing and neither one of them will have anything in common.

Point is; Zuckerberg has done nothing to become a person of the year to land his face on the cover of Time magazine.

I think the fact is :

Time magazine is an organization in it's own right.

Time magazine can name who the bloody hell they want.

It doesn't matter if Time magazine named Mahmoud Ahmadinejad their person of the year, because it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to me, you or anybody else really.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
You couldn't possibly have spelled that from memory could you.....?

I mean dude, look how the guests spell " Mother Teresa".

>> Mother Teressa << was on TIme magazine.

Benny26 Benny26, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Captaincranky said:

Originally Posted by Benny26

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

You couldn't possibly have spelled that from memory could you.....?

Damn, You got me there....

Guest said:

Facebook is in part to blame for the anti-social behavior which is common in todays society. Someone would rather talk to you over facebook than actually go out to dinner with you and have a face to face conversation. They would rather download Farmville and Farm, While you Farm.

So by Time naming him the Person of the year..Which he really has not done anything.

Time is also stating that Anti-social Behavior in todays society is not only OK, But..It is PERFECT.

Nope, I disagree.

But Whatever, Go ahead and badger at me. I'll bite.

Guest said:

He does look abit on the "I need my 50 billion to get women to sleep with me" side in the photo...

Have you seen http://www.guidingtech.com/cool-stuff/connecting-the-dots-on
facebook/

? LOL it reminded me of your quote. :D :D :D

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Facebook is in part to blame for the anti-social behavior which is common in todays society. Someone would rather talk to you over facebook than actually go out to dinner with you and have a face to face conversation. They would rather download Farmville and Farm, While you Farm.

So by Time naming him the Person of the year..Which he really has not done anything.

Time is also stating that Anti-social Behavior in todays society is not only OK, But..It is PERFECT.

Nope, I disagree.

But Whatever, Go ahead and badger at me. I'll bite.

I completely agree with everything you say, save for a couple of small details. I personally don't want to go out to dinner with most people in real life, and I avoid "Facebook" as if it were the plague.

Now the exception; the average child molester on Facebook, actually does want to meet, and go out with, your 13 year old daughter.

(That's obviously the royal "your", unless you actually have a 13 year daughter, in which case, take extra care of her on that website).

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.