

In your opinion did Mark Zuckerberg deserve "Person of the Year"? - abbasmehdi

I know this is old news, but I wonder if I'm the only one appalled by this title given to MZ, considering wikileaks’ contribution to the world vs. FB's.<p>Also, do say why or why not and if you think the movie "the social network" played a part in the attention MZ got from the folks at TIME?
======
chrislomax
The best thing this guy did was nick someone else's good idea. I do not really
follow WikiLeaks or its movement, I think they do some good but at the same
time endanger peoples lifes by their work.

I have no real input on who should have won it but I would rather see Mark
eating pot noodles in a skanky apartment somewhere.

You may call this mis-placed jealousy on my part, I call it an undeserved win
for a spotty teen. I doubt he has any real input in Facebook, rather it's run
by the people who know what they are doing. Serious amounts of delegation.

I have real respect for companies like Google. The guys there worked hard to
get where they are and have some real brains. I read their paper which they
published at Stanford on page rank, incredible stuff. They built their own db
and servers. That's real talent. He made a website and got some people going
to it. Suppose I could say the same for YouTube and eBay but I really don't
think Mark deserves even 1% of what he has achieved.

~~~
abbasmehdi
Chris, what you're saying is: not that MZ is awesome, he is super awesome!
Because he is a billionaire without any talent or vision, and if you and I
think we have talent and vision and got beaten by him, then who won?

An idea w/o execution is worth $2, and great execution on a semi-foolish idea
often results in a hit! Also, no idea is original; it’s all iteration on what
exists already - like the saying goes: if you want to make apple pie from
scratch, you'd first have to invent the universe. ;)

I think what you're suggesting is totally true about Google dudes having
brains, but Zuckster has brains too, he tapped into the human psyche, like
myspace, orkut, hi5, friendster etc couldn't. Apples to apples you read a PhD
thesis (guessing) and are comparing that to a u-grad.

And finally, you cannot discredit him for not working hard (enough), that
actually makes him smarter not dumber. ;)

~~~
chrislomax
I appreciate no idea is original and there was a hole in the market. Friends
Reunited has taken their position of power as a given and not done any major
updates to the site in years. Plus their paid business model was obviously a
failure.

I am not really saying he is not that clever, don't get me wrong, I bet he has
far more credentials than I ever will. What I am saying is, he doesn't deserve
what he has. As you can see, I look at Google and appreciate their position
and how they got there, I just don't get it with Mark.

The question really was, do I think he should have been made "Person of the
year", the simple answer is no, I do not.

I like your objective comments though and can totally see where you are coming
from.

------
mathnode
No, Assange dide.

------
mikerhoads
I don't really get worked up over stuff like this this, it is just an
arbitrary title assigned by one publication owned by a massive conglomerate.
These are time waster debates. Any time spent debating whether Assange should
have won it could just be spent actually helping the Wikileaks movement.
Fighting actual problems > fighting for worthless awards.

~~~
abbasmehdi
Good point, Mike. This is not a call to action. Not sure if we share the same
idea, but person of the year used to be a big deal. It reminded me of Pres
Obama’s Nobel Prize, until which it used to be a deal too. Talk about brand
value dilution.

~~~
burgerbrain
To clarifiy: the Times person of the year award has never been something that
indicates praise. Hitler got it after all.

Similarly, the nobel peace price was worthless long before it was awarded to
Obama, precisely because it was being awarded to people that had not earned
it.

~~~
abbasmehdi
Person of the year is not the same as "hero of the year". I think it has to do
more with who wielded the greatest influence on the world that year (for
better or for the worse). Iranian president was considered as well sometime
ago (and he is a nutty boy!)

Also, I don’t think it has to do with greatest number of people impacted,
rather the avg impact multiplied by the number of folks affected. Wikileaks
impact on say 30 million people * how much the average impacted individual’s
life has changed > Zuck’s impact on 600 million people * the very marginal
change in the life of average user. I also wonder if this change need be
'real' or 'perceived'.

