Vote Now: Who Should Be Time's Person of the Year? Edward Snowden
poy.time.com
poy.time.com
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...
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.
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.
Hitler won before.
PS: thinking about it, I'd vote for Satoshi. We should do a HN POY.
PS2 : done! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6800515
- 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,...
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.
That is to say that Internet polls grossly over represent certain minority beliefs.
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.
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.
Although in TIME's defense, their POY is still better than the Nobel Peace Prize.
I wonder if it is a secret message.
0/10 would not vote again
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)
----------
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?
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.
"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.
Why?
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.
You can just do that right after you vote.
People: Snowden is a hero.
What a great way to bring this difference of opinion to the fore.
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.
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.
I'd say those numbers sound about right...
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.
Error (api.go:209) forerunner/api.getPollById: exception: can't connect to new replica set master [ec2-54-225-59-0.compute-1.amazonaws.com:27017], err: couldn't connect to server ec2-54-225-59-0.compute-1.amazonaws.com:27017Not a scientific study, but I'd put money on it being repeatable outside the workplaces of hacker news readers.
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.
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.
I don't have a facebook account.
BTW, just voted for Miley. She definitely made my year.
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.
/s
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 ;)
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.
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.
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: 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.
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.
Traitor (noun)
a person who betrays someone or something, such as a friend, cause, or principle.
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.
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.
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?