- 108comments
- 197comments
- 15comments
- 41comments
- 8comments
- 36comments
- 62comments
- 216comments
- 12comments
- 234comments
- 1comments
- 143comments
- 41comments
- 20comments
- 80comments
- 41comments
- 167comments
- 14comments
- —discuss
- 10comments
- 113comments
- 84comments
- 138comments
- —discuss
- 8comments
- 23comments
- 232comments
- 15comments
- 16comments
- 74comments
Poll results: http://poy.time.com/2013/11/25/vote-now-who-should-be-times-...
Nice, was looking for that...
Strange looking list. On my browser Rand Paul's name is truncated to "RAND PAU.." (ironically all such truncated names are cut off at the last letter, making them all longer). Many longer names are not truncated, though: "RECEP TAYYIP ERDOĞAN", "DZHOKHAR AND TAMERLAN TSARNAEV". Several names end with full-stops, too: "MALALA YOUSAFZA." is one.
I wonder if it is a secret message.
Well, I tried to have a look at the list. I also happen to use a request-origin whitelist (Requestpolicy) and script whitelist (noscript). Those two present me with a list of around 20 locations from where the page tries to pull in content and code, many of which will pull in more content and code. Sorry, time.com, but I already had spaghetti last night so I'll pass, I guess the list wasn't that interesting to begin with.
Poll requires Facebook
0/10 would not vote again
Or twitter.
Honestly, It's easier than making people sign up for an account (safer too, since they don't leave an unhashed password in their database)
Or twitter:
----------
This application will be able to:
Read Tweets from your timeline.
See who you follow, and follow new people.
Update your profile.
Post Tweets for you.
----------
SRSLY?
Eh, vote then revoke access to the app.
Making it very complicated to cast a simple vote.
How do you know it does not immediately utilise those rights?
Please just say use
To me "utilise" has a slightly different meaning that "use". I am not a native speaker though. Is it just a fancy way of saying "use"? I thought it implied "using" an option/feature/opportunity to do something. So one "utilises" that to do something.
Ended up not voting because they are asking for way too many Twitter OAuth privileges (including following and posting with my account, plus updating my profile).
Vote then revoke access
Or don't vote. I don't give random apps total access to my Twitter account, even for a short time.
Exactly.
Probably because of /b/'s vote manipulation in previous years. Another reason we "can't have nice things" on the internet -- systems that rely on implicit codes of civility still seem to break down when people can remain anonymous.
Nevertheless is kind of weird that in orther to show that I'm not a bot I have to allow some app to read and post on my tweeter timeline... I guess this vote is a joke. Snowden might win but the lesson is that people haven't learned anything. :)
/b/'s vote manipulation lead to the selection of moot as most influential person, which is clearly correct, as moot's users influenced the voting process to ensure it.
except the award isn't "who is the most influential person on the internet", it's supposed to be "the most influential person of the year on the planet".
It's like when you cite raw polling results from the Daily Kos, and say its representative of American opinion. There's a lot of bias that needs to be taken into account.
I have no problem voting non-anonymously, but I'm not happy that I would have to share my friends list. That's too much.
Deserving of an Internet meme abbrev.: rf;ib (requires facebook, I bounced)
No way, I don't vote for traitors. All his US supporters are a bunch of Benedict Arnolds.
BTW, just voted for Miley. She definitely made my year.
I can completely understand your position if you are an American. And I'm sure you can understand us foreigners trying to show our appreciation for a man who uncovered this extensive evil intrusion into our lives.
Bottom line, he's a traitor. Beyond that, most of the laws that helped start this were set into effect years ago. Where were the people crying then?
Most people complain about having their privacy taken away when using free online services. All I see are a bunch of ignorant loud mouths who got angry too late.
Yeah because how dare any citizen question it's government, right?
/s
Are you serious? You can question everything you want as an ordinary citizen. The moment you sign a contract, specially for the military, you agree to keep your word.
So, right, how dare the government hold someone to their word? You're basically advocating lying and not honoring your promises.
BTW - I basically make a living honoring promises and contracts, otherwise we wouldn't have customers ;)
Says a guy who sells ads for a living ;)
Yes, obviously. There are situations where you ought to lie. The typical example: "Are there any Jews in your basement?"
Decency is more than keeping to the words, sometimes it even requires you break them to keep the spirit of promise. We generally give promises contingent on implied good behaviour from the other parties. When others break their promises the stack built on that mutual honour collapses.
And I'm fine living in the world where that's the way people treat promises, I massively prefer it to the world where people can be tricked into promising something and then have to keep to it when it turns out to be abhorrent.
Yes, if you make two promises, and it later turns out that they were mutually exclusive, I advocate following the laws of physics and breaking one of them.
If you think he chose to break the wrong one, then that might be a valid point, but you seem to be implying that if you were in that position you'd keep both o_O
It's actually possible to lie or break a promise.
Sometimes the ethics to do so are stronger than the ethics to not do so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banality_of_evil
Well, the moment you become part of the state (government), you agree to FOLLOW the constitution. The question here is not who broke "promises", but who acted against the constitution.
How far does this go for you? If, let's say, you witness wrongdoing performed by your employer, would you go along because, well, you promised to do a good job when you interviewed?
It's arguably true that he betrayed the NSA to the people. The big questions here are: Why is the NSA at odds with the American people; and who, ultimately, deserves your loyalty?
If the government doesn't represent the people anymore, does it still deserve the loyalty of the people? A lot of people would say no.
re: free services, a) they massively monitor and soak up data from the internet backbone. b) in addition to going through the ludicrous "proper channels" (secret courts and letters - arguably not compatible with democracy) they forcibly break in to said services to get more data - if you think they don't do this for paid and supposedly secure services you're delusional. But you don't. You just don't care.
re: getting angry too late. Yes that is typically how it works. Not every person can be fully informed on every complex issue. At some point however a line was crossed on this issue and it became part of the public consciousness. To say these people don't deserve their privacy because they were too late to the party is disingenuous, unrealistic and frankly a really disturbing approach to take.
"You don't deserve your health because you weren't protesting when they _started_ to secretly dump chemicals in the waters - oh now that it's common knowlege you're pissed off? You got angry too late, you ignorant loudmouth."
re: traitor. He's a traitor to the U.S. military. Treason is not a global binary thing. You can be a traitor to one person and a hero to another. In this case he has done far more good than harm to most people on this planet. You are at once short-sighted and narrow-minded for refusing to look beyond this fact.
How does him being a traitor or not affect whether or not his actions influenced the world? The vote isn't for nicest person in world or person I'd most like to have a beer with.
I honestly cannot tell if you are trolling, but I will bite.
Free online services do not have a monopoly on force. The government does. My choice to use Google means that they will know more about me, but the Google SWAT team cannot kick down my door in the middle of the night and drag me to a black site for an indeterminate length of time because I said something that Larry Page did not like.
Don't speak for all foreigners. I'm from Russia and I loathe Snowden who basically became a propaganda prop for Putin.
Well, this is an interesting issue. I tend to stick to the viewpoint that if a disgusting person does something worthwhile, and gets praised for it, that praise is earned. A good deed doesn't become a bad deed just because it's done by a bad person.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Damn right he's a traitor, but only a traitor to the US government. To millions of people (like me) he's a hero.
And where were people like you several years ago when the laws were signed that allow the government to tap into network lines?
A hero and their army are useless when they're late to the war.
I don't honor traitors, but go ahead and worship him all you want.
Where was I? School
In the Netherlands. Being non-US, like 97% of the world, I am not allowed to vote on all those US-policies that shape my life.
I was protesting then, too. They didn't listen. I'm still protesting, but now a lot more people are aware of what's going on.
And, I'd like to point out: Not everything the NSA has been doing is legal, even according to the terrifyingly broad laws put in place during the panic after 9/11.
If you're going to wave around the "T" word...the traitors are in our government. They're the ones who would give up liberty for the illusion of safety. Also, Benedict Arnold is a silly comparison to make; read your history a bit more closely and think it through. Snowden may not be a hero in your eyes; I disagree, but I can't tell you how to feel about it. But, to compare him to Arnold doesn't even make sense.
I never understand why USAians refer to Benedict Arnold as a "traitor". It's a really stupid word to bandy about in a civil war. The country was governed by Britain. Everyone who fought against the government was, by definition, a traitor. Using a word with such a definite negative connotation in such a complex environment is either disingenuous or obtuse.
For similar reasons, using the word "traitor" is also stupid in the case of Snowden. Against whom / what was he a traitor? - The government? A branch of the government? The constitution? The people?
I wouldn't call Snowden a traitor, but I think the term is perfectly apt for Benedict Arnold. He was a general in one army who defected to the opposing army. That's pretty much the definition of traitor. That doesn't deny your point that all the rebelling colonials were traitors to the British.
From an objective point of view, you're right - I still don't like the term (or the use-case, rather)...
the traitors are those who wipe their a with the constitution and then clame they are patriots.
Government: Snowden is a terrorist.
People: Snowden is a hero.
What a great way to bring this difference of opinion to the fore.
Putin and Miley Cyrus is currently close to the top. Together with Snowden, they create a holy trinity of heroes.
Or the "axis of evil" depending on your point of view.
Person of the year is the person considered to have had the most significant influence on the world, but not necessarily for the better. It's an acknowledgment of their significance, not an endorsement of their actions. Previous winners include Hitler, Stalin and Ayatullah Khomeini.
No matter where someone falls on the Snoweden-is-a-terrorist/Snowden-is-a-hero scale, they can all agree that his actions greatly influenced the current poltical narrative, and stands a good chance of changing the world (for better or worse depending on which side of the debate you stand on) as we move forward.
IIRC those were all Man of the Year. TIME's choices in more recent years have been far more wimpy (e.g. Osama Bin Laden was snubbed in 2001); while their stated aim is to pick the most significant (for good or ill) person, I no longer have any faith that they will do so.
Government: Snowden is a terrorist. People: Snowden is a hero. Other People: Snowden is neither.
Public opinion polls are split on Edward Snowden.
I voted Lebron James.
Ugh, do people still waste their time with TIME magazine and their "storied" polls? Sorry, but it is the equivalent of a tabloid because for the last 10 years the quality of articles have been continuously dropping. To see it linked here on HN is unfortunate. Lets spend our time on more interesting topics.
The masses read the tabloids, if they are not on your side then you're the minority.
Which leaves you with the only other options put up with the status quo or leave.
Until we get our seasteading going the tabloids are very important.
Correction: The mass of baby boomers who still have subscription ;)
Although in TIME's defense, their POY is still better than the Nobel Peace Prize.
Are these polls typically good indicators of TIME's official choice? Or is this going to be a way of making Snowden "the people's POY" without TIME officially making it so?
Poll 2010:
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,288...
And then it became:
http://content.time.com/time/person-of-the-year/2010/
So probably this year it will be Miley Cyrus...
Currently (and thankfully) Edward Snowden has 10x more votes than Miley Cyrus
And Julian Assange had 21x more votes than Mark Zuckerberg...
That was one of the most disappointing winnings of Time's POY awards. It should've been Assange, not Zuckerbeg.
Update, Cyrus is now ahead of Snowden with a comfortable lead.
I'm so disapointed, da fuk she's even on the list ?!
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan got a lot of positive votes. I imagine he doesn't have same support after Gezi.
How does Erdogan deserve to be the times person of the year. With everything that is happening in Turkey and all the countries that it defies and steps over. He shouldn't event be on the list !
i guess, just his fans votes for him. They do this every time
I guess they're trying to be objective, "Boston Bombers" Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev are on the list.
There was a streak of like 5 or 6 in a row where I was dumbfounded at the choices. I feel like they're being way too objective here and including people who are absolutely terrible.
Hitler and Stalin were each a Times Person of the Year. They're selecting important people, not benevolent ones. At least, in theory.
Important in a historical context. In the grand scheme of things giving Zuckerberg the award was like giving President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize; Maybe OK later, but a little early.
I thought Hitler was Time's POTY when he was still propelling Germany out of abject poverty, and before he, you know, started a war. Is my timing off here?
1936 was pre-Kristallnacht and Poland wasn't getting invaded yet, though conscription in Germany began in 1936. The Night of the Long Knives had already established Hitler and the Nazis as rather unpleasant people.
Person (previously "Man") of the year has never been a moral judgment. Hitler was "man of the year" in 1936. It's a question of who had the most impact -- for good or ill.
Well, originally. But now? No, absolutely not. See recent persons of the year (of the past few decades): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year#Persons...
There's a connotation of greatness in the phrase 'person of the year', that's there whether you like it or not, and Time magazine is certainly not going to get itself in rough waters by nominating a controversial figure and then substantiating a pick by the reason you cite -- that it's a person who had the most impact. If that really were true, Guiliani wouldn't have been picked as the POY, Osama would have, Zuck wouldn't have been picked, Assange would have.
But all of this aside, what I want to say most is that Time magazine is just a terrible tabloid at this point that's only been getting more terrible with each passing year. It's designed to appeal to the LCD audience, it's filled with FUD full up their necks. See this recent cover for example: http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2013/1310/360_cover_1111.j...
I really hope we all start ignoring Time soon.
He has a fan base which acts just like Justin Bieber fans.
Disclaimer: I can't be objective on this issue because I disagree with Erdoğan on nearly every subject. I also keep hearing that he actually hires people to lead a social media army but I can't prove it. I really don't like him.
I do not support Recep Tayyip but, due to a reason which I do not know yet, the people of Turkey loves and believes him. Also we need to accept that, he is a strong man. To fix the economy, whole strategic companies have been sold. The power of military has been taken down. Also, the turkish companies and people are not supported by government.
Time person of the year is not about the best person. It's about the most influential person.
Hitler won before.
Wait... Julian Assange won, but didn't? Or am I misunderstanding how this PoY contest works (in the sense that, the votes are symbolic, and Time chooses whoever they want as PoY)?
This is exactly it. When Moot won it was heavily talked about how Time wasn't going to actually choose him over Obama or whoever it was. I think there was enough backlash and fear of pissing off Anonymous that they actually stuck to that one. Here's to hoping they stick to what the people voted for with no hesitation this time. but who knows, maybe they'll be forced under gag order into not using Snowden because it will honor him instead of marking him as the most evil person ever.
The Time magazine chooses ultimately, it is only influenced by the voting.
http://i.imgur.com/jv9t4X0.png
I'd say those numbers sound about right...
I'm wondering why some people are on the list, like Miley Cyrus or the guy behind Netflix. If those are, why not others? I'd personally vote for the head of Naughty Dog and The Last of Us over Netflix.
PS: thinking about it, I'd vote for Satoshi. We should do a HN POY.
PS2 : done! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6800515
"Person of the Year" is really "Newsmaker of the Year." It's not an endorsement, just a recognition that they made the most news. Hitler was TIME's "Man of the Year" in 1938.
- after the Munich Agreement wherein Hitler agreed peace with Chamberlain. Ok he reneged, but that's not the point.
The article isn't celebrating peace, it's very negative about Hitler. The cover for that issue shows people being tortured.
Edit: you can read it here.
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,760539,...
Then I am wrong.
Yeah, old times when the press had balls. Good luck hoping Time will pick Snowden these days.
Snowden's kind of a shoe-in then, no? His name has been in headlines constantly for the majority of the year.
I don't see how this is even a question capable of admitting debate (although maybe Poitras and Greenwald could get in.)
As much as I appreciate Edward Snowden and what he did, Malala Yousafzai deserves even more attention for her deeds.
It is not about deserves or don't, it's about influence. Yousafzai influence to the World is negligible in comparison to Snowden.
Chrome won't let me vote..throwing shitloads of errors in the console.
GPT LOADED EVENT LISTENER EXECUTED load listener, textContent GPT LOADED Blocked a frame with origin "http://poy.time.com" from accessing a frame with origin "http://tags.bluekai.com". Protocols, domains, and ports must match. GPT LOADED EVENT LISTENER EXECUTED load listener, textContent Blocked a frame with origin "http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net" from accessing a frame with origin "http://poy.time.com". Protocols, domains, and ports must match. EVENT LISTENER EXECUTED old height: old width: scroll height: 55 scroll width: 275 new height: new width: Blocked a frame with origin "http://poy.time.com" from accessing a frame with origin "http://tags.bluekai.com". Protocols, domains, and ports must match. Uncaught SecurityError: An attempt was made to break through the security policy of the user agent. 93c0d7430d30e77dc6a5f0275dfcb679.js:48 Uncaught TypeError: Object #<Page> has no method 'init' 528c2242c903451bee0013d3:81 2 Blocked a frame with origin "http://poy.time.com" from accessing a frame with origin "http://tags.bluekai.com". Protocols, domains, and ports must match. Invalid App Id: Must be a number or numeric string representing the application id. all.js:56 The "fb-root" div has not been created, auto-creating all.js:56 FB.getLoginStatus() called before calling FB.init(). all.js:56 2 Blocked a frame with origin "http://poy.time.com" from accessing a frame with origin "http://tags.bluekai.com". Protocols, domains, and ports must match. Posted 2 errors to errorception.com 50eb3228903069e001000036.js:1 2 Blocked a frame with origin "http://poy.time.com" from accessing a frame with origin "http://tags.bluekai.com". Protocols, domains, and ports must match.
You have access to another browser.
I don't have a facebook account.
Can't vote as I have to login with Twitter or Facebook to vote.
Why?
My thoughts exactly. I went to vote in their poll, it told me I had to have one of those, so screw it, they dont want my vote.
It throws that up after you vote, presumably to make you broadcast this very important poll to the universe of rapt followers we all have. I didn't get the impression you actually have to do that to vote, though, since it pops up afterward. It at least gave me the impression that I voted even though I dismissed it.
The popup says "Please log in to ensure your vote is counted."
The Twitter auth also includes the ability to post tweets for you, although the popup says "We won’t post anything without your permission." Didn't I just give them permission if I authorize them to use my account? No thanks.
Twitter > Settings > Apps > Revoke Access
You can just do that right after you vote.
Yeah, fuck that. Voting in a meaningless online poll isn't important enough for me to grant unlimited access to anyone, for however short a time.
Marblecake also the game
Actually, looks like they took away the ability to use Twitter and it's Facebook exclusive.
2012: Anonymous got peoples vote, but Obama was chosen.
The irony is to vote for Snowden,I need to login using Facebook or twitter :), so that time.com can track me.
Putin is a good one but I feel like he wasn't a top newsmaker this year, and further that he will most likely be a newsmaker next year (look at current happenings in Ukraine, continued things like that, and then the mother of all craziness that's going to be Sochi Olympics)
Snowden seems like the best bet for sheer impact/newsmaker. Tho I'm not sure how 'international' TIME is these days, and perhaps Snowden is only really know in the West.
"Authorize Poptip to use your account?
"This application will be able to: * Read Tweets from your timeline. * See who you follow, and follow new people. * Update your profile. * Post Tweets for you."
The hell.
I stopped trying to vote after enabling the 20th third-party script on that page and the poll still didn't work.
The future PM CANDIDATE OF INDIA SHREE NARENDRA MODI JI!deserved to the time person of the year! Cos he thoroughly deserves it!
I think Modi seems like a no-nonsense forward thinking anti-corruption development oriented person. Completely unlike any of the rest of India's nepotistic political caste. I hope for India's sake that this guy gets a shot at trying to solve some of those problems.
This is one of the more disheartening polls I've seen. It speaks to a new, disturbing dynamic in our social order where people do not defend their beliefs with any sort of force or passion.
I had no clue so many people shared in my belief that Snowden has done something great. I figured the media had corrupted most of the people into thinking he'd done something deplorable, because no one has been taking to the streets or to the polls or to the anything to demand changes based on his revelations.
Past generations would have, but that's not the case today. We think he's great. We just don't care to actually support him.
Historically, I feel like there was a notion that someone was "too popular to execute." But, even though the vast majority appear to support Snowden so much that they declare him POY, I don't think we'd do a thing if the US raided his home in Russia and put a bullet in him. We'd be mad, and we'd write blog posts about it, and maybe some people would DDoS attack a website or send a bunch of pizzas to John Kerry, but there would be no political turnover. There would be no justice on Snowden's behalf. At best, it would be like Guantanamo, where some new POTUS candidate promises change so we elect him, then does absolutely nothing. And we'd happily just not care.
If you rely on Internet polls to deduce what the sentiment of the country is then Snowden is an American hero, Ron Paul should be president, and there would be no more software patents.
That is to say that Internet polls grossly over represent certain minority beliefs.
Actual polls show a slight majority in favor of Snowden, despite the barrage of whining and accusations from politicians and cable news.
Oh come now, of course we would. We'd up vote the HN article announcing this news. And the more radical among us would surely post a comment.
I don't think Edward Snowden should be person of the year. Not because I don't think he did something important because he did. I truly think what he did was the right thing. But he needs to stand trial in the US so the we the people can see how extreme our government has become.
He needs to be like batman, sacrifice his mind, body and freedom for a cause that people will remember him for.
But he's in Russia and he's never coming back to the US so this will be a on going thing for years even decades where no one but few people will remember him and our blight.
Why do you think that excludes him from being the person of the year? I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive.
I may not be correct, but Edward said specifically at the beginning of all of this: Please don't make this about me! Correct?
Didn't he also say somewhere that we'll be reading about him in history books?
Thanks for the helpful error message, Time.
Wonder how Zimmerman and Travon Martin did not get on this list.
Their voting system provider keeps failing.
Voted (with my "fake" FB account cause I don't have a real one).
...and provide Time marketing info by giving them access to your Facebook data. Not happening, thank-you very much.
I'd nominate Bill Gates, he's done more in the past year to support and make actual change and improve the world than anyone on the list. Then again, not exactly newsworthy.
Miley Cyrus has more votes than Edward Snowden. How can that be?
I just asked three people near me if they knew who Snowden and Cyrus were. Guess who was recognized by all three and who was vaguely acknowledged by 1.
Not a scientific study, but I'd put money on it being repeatable outside the workplaces of hacker news readers.
Is that an honest question?
You realise that almost no-one gives a fuck about Snowden, right? Most people really just don't care.
The Guardian newspaper has (if we're generous) a circulation of 250,000 people.
The (untrustworthy) numbers of the MileyCyrusVEVO "Wrecking Ball" video are 352,117,848 views.
Now I'm depressed.
The numbers are completely different from this afternoon, seems like some people are hacking the votes for fun: http://www.dailydot.com/news/time-person-of-the-year-miley-c...