Time Person of the Year 2013 | Hacker News Reader

Time Person of the Year 2013

poy.time.com

50 pointslemma85 comments

For crying out loud! What difference has the Pope made to the world (and do remember, the world does include non-Christian countries...or roughly 5 billion out of 7 billion people...and I'm not even getting into Catholics vs. non-Catholics here).

Colour me cynical, but any publication that declares anyone other than Edward Snowden as the Person of the Year in 2013 has to have some pretty BIG reasons for doing so. And the Pope's just don't cut it.

Obama has been person of the year twice in the last 5 years and there seem to be other countries than the USA last time i checked.

roughly 6.7 billion out of 7 billion people are not in the USA.

Right now there are high hopes that the Pope will make a difference. Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize nine months after his election. For what reason if not high hopes?

To a huge number of people on this planet the problems around the NSA are rather insignificant.

EDIT: Typo

"Person of the year 2013" isn't "person we're hoping will make a difference in 2014", it's "person who has made a difference".

The pope can pretty much do nothing that will affect me, but the bullshit the NSA pulls affect me every day.

>> "The pope can pretty much do nothing that will affect me, but the bullshit the NSA pulls affect me every day."

So Time should have checked with you first? I don't really care who they voted as person of the year (it really doesn't matter) but being annoyed they picked someone who doesn't effect you (but can effect millions of others) is pretty dumb and selfish reasoning.

Well, I was either using myself as a data point, or I meant that, since the pope can't affect me specifically, Time shouldn't have chosen him.

I'm glad you picked the more reasonable of the two options.

And in Obama's case, that turned out to be extremely premature. So learn from history? Then again didn't Time give this award to Hitler, too? So yeah, they don't exactly have a good record of learning from history.

Maybe Snowden beats Francis in the race for the next Nobel Peace Prize ;)

The actions of Snowden are far more likely to cause war than stop it. Some of Francis' actions are more cause to stop "holy war" than anything else.

Hitler was MOTY in 1938. Since he had a rather large effect on history, it seems as if they made a good call. Remember, this is not supposed to be an honor, it's supposed to identify someone who influences things.

perhaps the rest of the world are not computer nerds

Sure Snowden opened up a dialog when it comes to privacy etc. and that's a big deal for us because we live on the internet.

This pope however is so transformational he could seriously do a lot to bring peace to the world. Potential wise, this guy trumps Snowden on every level.

Take a moment to think about how powerful this guy really is.

P.S I'm muslim.

>>Take a moment to think about how powerful this guy really is.

Symbolically yes. But the world has moved on. Power these days comes in the form of a well developed economy, powerful armies, weapons, lobbies etc.

Spiritual power by and large means nothing in the current world.

Its all power, wealth and interests that move around them.

Which of the above factors did Nelson Mandela possess?

Beyond the symbolic stature that he possessed, what 'power' did he have?

where i live abortion, in any form, is still illegal.

this guy certainly does have power over many people.

if you had a hugely successful campaigner in the usa that transformed the debate over abortion there, don't you think that would make news? this guy has the same potential, and that's just one small aspect, here in chile.

and anyway, it is not about power. snowden has very little power, but we would all (well most of us) appreciate it if he had won.

I like this pope, but anything coming out of Vatican is essentially white-noise when it comes to national and international policies. No world leader actually cares.

So how does he bring peace to the world?

Ground level action outside of a government. There's hundreds of millions of Catholics who listen, and if the Pope says 'let your voices be heard' they'll certainly be vocal.

Plus peace doesn't just have to be an end to armed conflict, it could be helping restore peace to just one person through charitable acts.

Agreed. When I saw the link on Hacker News, my gut reaction was that it was probably Snowden; however, I have to say I think the Pope was the far better choice (and I'm an atheist).

He's the first Pope from what is often called the Global South, and really brings a different perspective and emphasis on cultural and economic issues that could have massive implications for the entire world (whether you're Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, atheist, etc) -- reaching far beyond the debate Snowden started.

He's the first Pope from what is often called the Global South, and really brings a different perspective […]

Oh, you mean like Obama really brought a different perspective as the first black President of the USA?

Are awards being simply handed out for being the "first" at something?

Also why do you think the Pope has any influence on a Muslim, Hindu or Jew? Do you think the local imam or rabbi is busy dissecting the Pope's latest press releases?

> Also why do you think the Pope has any influence on a Muslim, Hindu or Jew?

I'll let a Muslim activist provide one answer to that: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maha-elgenaidi/pope-francis-a-...

> Do you think the local imam or rabbi is busy dissecting the Pope's latest press releases?

Apparently, some of them do: http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20130413/muslims-say-...

Exactly. If your life is lived online, especially in the tech community echo chamber, Snowden is going to mean a lot more to you than he does to most people.

There are 1.2 billion Catholics in the world. I attended Catholic church growing up, and the pope has a lot of influence on Catholics. Many of these people have portraits of the pope (at the time it was John Paul II) in central areas of their homes. If you aren't part of that community, maybe it is hard to see how much of a difference the pope can make, although I think this pope has been hard to ignore, no matter who you are. When he speaks, hundreds of millions closely listen. And action happens.

He may not really have changed the church on the topics of contraception and abortion, but that's also not what he is really out there talking about. The topic is humility, compassion, and charity. When is the last time these topics really had a globally influential champion?

> The topic is humility, compassion, and charity. When is the last time these topics really had a globally influential champion?

Er, since the last pope?!

What makes this pope special from the others?

he's significantly more liberal. that is the whole point, really. maybe you should read the article?

"significantly more liberal" in this context means he's a slightly less hateful reactionary bigot.

If the pope ran for election in the average western democracy he would be far right, next to the neo-nazi's and the anti-immigrant parties.

But because it's the catholic church we even use the word "liberal" to describe his ideology.

this simply doesn't make sense. i live in a catholic country with extreme right-wing parties. they are to the right of this pope. they are worried by him.

also, try learning how the word "more" modifies an adjective. 1e99 is "more small" than 1e100.

i despair at the level of comments here.

> If the pope ran for election in the average western democracy he would be far right

The fairly harsh criticism of modern capitalism in Evangelii Gaudium is hardly consistent with the far right. Certainly, the Church has right-wing positions on some issues -- which are in many cases the issues Francis has said the Church tends to excessively focus on and needs to not overemphasize -- while on others it has fairly left-wing positions.

If being "liberal" automatically equates to being "good" and you want to pick someone who has the maximum impact, well, there's probably at least one Muslim cleric out there who wants to ban the stoning of women, hanging of homosexuals and Saturday afternoon be-headings.

> > The topic is humility, compassion, and charity. When is the last time these topics really had a globally influential champion?

> Er, since the last pope?!

No. I mean, to be sure, humility, compassion, and charity are topics that the Church has discussed under every Pope, but not ones for which the Pope has been a visible model the way Francis -- both as Cardinal Bergoglio and since becoming Pope -- has.

And for everyone who is angry about this, Snowden took first runner up. They clearly acknowledged him as hugely influential.

Am I the only person not shocked by each new leak? As in "What were you expecting. It's nice to have evidence, but did you really believe spy agencies were NOT spying. On everything."

As you said, potential wise, he does blow Snowden out of the water. But I can't see why you wouldn't wait until he fulfills that potential before naming him person of the year.

>he could seriously do a lot

COULD. Snowden HAS.

Snowden and the Pope both have, but mostly -- in both cases -- in terms of provoking conversation and debate, with only fairly modest impacts in terms of substantive impact.

OTOH, that's not really inconsistent with what the "Person of the Year" normally means.

I'll take you up on your assertions.

> "This pope however is so transformational he could seriously do a lot to bring peace to the world"

Could, maybe. But what has he achieved in 2013?

> "Potential wise, this guy trumps Snowden on every level."

But the award isn't for "potential", is it? Even if it were, the potential comes with the job title, so it's not something he can lay claim to.

> "Take a moment to think about how powerful this guy really is."

I did, really. I still can't think of a reason he won.

P.S. I don't think our religion is under discussion here, but FWIW I'm Hindu.

I agree that the Pope is powerful & very influential. But that's always true, or at least generally true, not specific to 2013.

You are doing the same thing by assuming that Snowden's influence is as vast as that of Christianity. If you compare the percentages of people on the internet VS those who are Christian (at this point in time) you get approximately the same amount sitting at 32-34%. http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/dec/23/...

Now I know that the internet is going to continue spreading to the point that it is at a much higher population than this, however, we are talking about 2013. Snowden did something awesome, and deserves to be up there in the finalists, but I don't like this sort of attitude that anything Christian has no relevance.

Francis has had a huge affect on many Christians and non-Christians alike because he is attempting to depolarize the Catholic church and better integrate them with the rest of the world. Both people deserve renown for what they've done. So lets not diminish the work of either Snowden or Francis.

You are doing the same thing by assuming that Snowden's influence is as vast as that of Christianity.

It's not "just" about the internet, or even IT - it's the revelation that we are forced into a panopticon, that all of us are spied upon.

Christianity has nothing real at it's base. It's just mythology. Yeah, there are a huge number of people who "believe" it.

In contrast IT shapes just about every damn aspect of our lives. Just about all financial transfers, personal communication, news, etc. etc. are stored on computers of some shape and travel the internet. The internet has enabled the arab spring, international scientific collaboration and many, many, MANY other things.

As a little example of the real impact the Snowden Leaks have, just look at the number of Christians[1] vs. the number of cellphone subscriptions[2]: There's about 2 billion Christians. And about 6 billion cellphone subscriptions. So please don't go yapping about how fucking important some half-dead fairytale is.

[1] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=number%20of%20christia...

[2] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=number%20of%20people%2...

Addendum: Please also note, that the Pope doesn't even represent all Christians but just catholic Christians, of which there's even less than a billion.

Meanwhile, the Snowden Leaks are important to just about everyone. The only people who are unaffacted by this are people who live without any computers.

But hey, if you live with some indigenous tribe in the jungle, you're (probably) in the clear; Until realtime surveillance with satellites becomes cheap enough at least.

>Christianity has nothing real at it's base. It's just mythology. Yeah, there are a huge number of people who "believe" it.

It has historical relevance, the influence of the church throughout history not the stories in the Bible. AKA Inquisition, influence on the Monarchies, crusades, etc.

It has a huge base of believers who listen to a clergy man every Sunday and some (not all) take to heart what he has to say, this is passed down from the head of the church (the pope and cardinals).

It has huge political sway. Just like the revelations that Snowden did.

In contrast, Snowden revealed something of great importance to the First World (which is probably why you are all fired up about it). He pointed out something that really could be disastrous for our nation. However, the adoption and acceptance of Homosexuals in the third world is also important and Francis could have an affect on that.

>There's about 2 billion Christians. And about 6 billion cellphone subscriptions.

And if the poles are to be believed only 50% of Americans care about this. I can guarantee you there are less Bolivians and Haitians (who have cell phones too) that give a crap about NSA Surveillance. Rest assured, I'm in the percentage that cares, but I'm also not going to write off the contributions of Pope Francis. But this isn't as relevant to EVERYONE as you seem to assume. Also, these are very bad metrics for the affect EITHER Snowden or Francis will have on history.

>So please don't go yapping about how fucking important some half-dead fairytale is. This is inappropriate and you were being a dick. Yapping? Seriously? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just being silly here...

Edit: TL;DR; Even if you take away the belief system in the Catholic church and the Pope has an affect on a huge number of human beings, and that is really what this is all about...

Even if you take away the belief system in the Catholic church and the Pope has an affect on a huge number of human beings, and that is really what this is all about...

Yes, and it's about how many people are affected, not how many "care" about it.

You don't have to care about the Leaks in order for the revealed programs to affect you. And it's not only the first world, as every spy agency freely siphons any and all "foreign" data they can get their hands on. So third world countries are considered fair game by pretty much all spy agencies and are obviously spied upon (German authorities for instance often repeat the mantra that they spy on Afghani data traffic because terror). Even now the largest part of the third world population has a cellphone and is getting ever more connected.

The catholic church might have a good deal of political sway and lots of followers, but the Snowden Leaks affect as close to 100% of the global population as you'll ever get.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that the influence of the church is dwindling while the influence of digital communication is going to continue to soar.

For crying out loud! What difference has Edward Snowden made to the world (and do remember, the world does include people not connected to the Internet... or roughly 4.5 billion out of 7 billion people... and I'm not even getting into people with not enough to eat every day here).

Colour me cynical, but any publication that declares anyone other than Chuck Norris as the Person of the Year in 2013 has to have some pretty BIG reasons for doing so. And Edward Snowden's just don't cut it.

my reason: he only enlightened very naive people with massive blinkers on their vision.

although i'm inclined to agree he is a very good choice...

This comment is so far away from the parent I can no longer remember who the "he" is referencing. I like that I can turn this both ways and have it be snowden or the pope.

it was originally meant to be snowden... but you are right, it can apply to the pope... i'd never thought of what he does as 'enlightening' but i guess it could be construed as such by those he is there for... :)

I agree with you. Is HN being attacked by religious crazy people? The pope won't do shit. Seriously, he is more insignificant than any random educated citizen.

> Seriously, he is more insignificant than any random educated citizen

Wow. You're really living in your own little bubble.

With their bold investigative reporting and willingness to speak truth to power, I just can't understand why weekly news magazines are having such a hard time in the U.S.

Well, this Pope has been remarkably liberal and transformational. He's only remarkable in the context of the last few popes, who were insanely conservative. Francis is merely extremely conservative...

>Well, this Pope has been remarkably liberal and transformational

Has he? I know that he has been saying a lot of stuff, but has he actually changed anything? I get the feeling that either he is full of shit, or that he doesn't actually have the power to carry out all the reforms that he says he will.

>Francis is merely extremely conservative...

I think it was sarcasm.

Well, that was certainly the safer choice. Francis is an interesting figure so far, but he hasn't caused -- yet, anyway -- worldwide changes in the political dialogue like Snowden has. Time, though, went with a choice that doesn't annoy the powerful Western democracies.

He shows promise but, like awarding Obama the Nobel peace prize, this is just too soon.

This unlike the nobel price is given for influencing the events of the year, not so much for being good or great. Even Hitler and Stalin were selected.

He doesn't even show promise. Obama promised change, this pope only promises slightly less fanatical bigotry.

I'm not saying Snowden or the Pope should or shouldn't be the POTY... but the narrow mindedness here is pretty silly (yet predictable). Maybe it's hard for atheist technologists living in the tech bubble to fathom, but the Pope is unbelievably influential to not just the millions (or even billions) of Catholics around the world, but even those who are not Catholic/Christian. I'm not sure whether Pope Francis will/has inspired policy change, moved political waves, etc, but when one person can potentially inspire perspective change in billions of people in the way they treat others and view many of the hot button issues in the world today, that seems worthy enough for POTY candidacy.

> I'm not sure whether Pope Francis will/has inspired policy change, moved political waves, etc

There's some indications that it may have, if not spurring political change, at least reduced a barrier to it with some immediate effect [1].

[1] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2013/1106/As-Illinoi...

Did they finally just throw out the poll data and go with whoever they wanted? I remember originally Snowden was winning by a landslide.

They always do that. The polls have never been to determine who the POTY will be, but just to see who people vote for. Time picks whoever they want regardless of the polls.

Yeah, the poll is essentially just to generate another story about "who the people want".

These days it just seems to provide something to keep 4chan occupied for a week.

The last data I had seen (when I'd voted), had Miley Cyrus ahead by millions of votes. When did Snowden jump ahead? Was that 4chan "to the rescue"?

Somehow I wouldn't be surprised if Snowden has just as much impact on 2014 as he did on 2013.

Why are these "Person of the Year" stories still relevant?

Time awarding Snowden POY would them look out of the loop. That seems to be the logiical PR explanation. Vatican is really a diminished institution, while the NSA is ascendent. This just impugns the relevance of Time mag's editorial, in a way...which is not flattering.

Interesting comparison. The NSA will never need the Inquisition to assert its power though, they already know. Knowledge is power.

What do you mean by "never need the Inquisition"? The CIA/DIA/NSA Inquisition has been happening 24x7 for years now; we just haven't been privy to it.

I'm continually amazed at the frequent and detailed coverage, by every major news organization, expended on every snore and snuffle emitted by this one weird cult.

I'm almost as amazed by my own persistent naivete: I went to Time fully expecting to see Snowden.

"And in the same fashion, while we can if we choose see the Church amid a mob of Mithraic or Manichean superstitions squabbling and killing each other at the end of the Empire, while we can if we choose imagine the Church killed in the struggle and some other chance cult taking its place, we shall be the more surprised (and possibly puzzled) if we meet it two thousand years afterwards rushing through the ages as the winged thunderbolt of thought and everlasting enthusiasm; a thing without rival or resemblance; and still as new as it is old."

– G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man, 1925

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100311.txt

I think that some of you guys are missing the point by being a bit too America-centric. The new Pope is a gamechanger for a ton of people and has effected more lives directly than Snowden has (at least in those peoples' perspective).

How? He cant even stop his own priests from fucking kids.

Man the public education system is broken. They can't even keep their own teachers from fucking kids.

Yes please, make this choice least interesting/controversial as possible to make it even more irrelevant. The interesting question is: would it be someone else if Time wasn't US media?

Maybe that's my trope as much as Snowden looks like a trope to some other commenters here but 2013 was the perfect timing[0] for a POY "LGBT Recognition" or so.

Anyway, I'm betting on a science-related POY in 2014, remember to check if I was right ;)

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Timeline

They have well and truly learnt that they get more clicks by naming someone completely undeserving than the answer everyone expects.

Here's some info about the poll. It reports a few (too few) numbers. I suppose the editors didn't want to overwhelm us.

http://poy.time.com/2013/12/05/egypts-sisi-wins-readers-poll...

meh, I am not impressed by the pope. If he wanted, he could to something, e.g. propagating the use of condoms in developing countries. But so far all he did were some propaganda stunts. Especially the "capitalism = bad" letter he published (written in the Vatican, surrounded by gold and amassed wealth) is not worth the paper he printed it on.

I have recently visited South Africa and I have seen the problems caused by non existent (or rather: not allowed by the church) family planning.

However, lots of people (mostly Catholics) just want see some change, and Franzicus is feeding their hopes. Not a hard job after Ratzinger (remember, he was head of the current-time inquisition), but as long as he doesn't tackle any of the real world problems that are within his reach, he is nothing more than a prop.

This is as big a cop-out as choosing Giuliani over Osama bin Laden as Time Person of the Year 2001.

I figured they wouldn't give it to Snowden. They're too scared/docile to do such a thing. They gave it to Zuckerberg - in 2011 (why that year?!) - instead of Assange, too, so whatever. To me Time POY is useless.

Why do people angry? It's Time person of the year, they have their own criteria, they can choose anyone they want, they don't need to justify it. If you want, you can also publish your own person of the year.

Is this a joke or a payoff?!

Indeed. Miley Cyrus was robbed.

Well, we all know Time, Time/Warner and the media in general in the US is owned in the worst definitive way. So, of course Snowden can't be Person of the Year.

I'm sorry, why the fuck is dead tree publication praising a religious bigot a top story on HN?

shameful. although he has certainly had an impact, what a revolting choice.

to pick such a wicked and corrupt individual, especially one who is deluded into thinking of themselves as righteous...

gah!!!

still... at least it wasn't Snowden.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com