Youtubers: Person of the year
 

So yeah, Hugo Chavez (Venezuelan president) was leading the polls for person of the year and all of the sudden Time decides to put "the people" as person of the year.

Besides the fact that Hugo Chavez is a socialist, do you guys actually feel the power of controlling your own means?

Power to the people, I'd like to think, but is it too soon or too late? Of course, America (your America, I should clarify) would love to boicott Venezuela and Bolivia, let alone Cuba, but if they're starting to lose control of traditional media, are they gonna make it? I mean, the people would stay quiet in this "Information Age"

Discuss.

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2UqDeMltbk&eur

I liked all the zooming in and emphasis.

I didn't even know that Hugo Chavez seemed to be most likely for person of they year, and even before I read this, I looked at our copy of Time magazine and thought that "you (the people)" was such a cop-out for person of the year. The first thought that came to mind when I saw the cover was: "Really? Maybe Time was having trouble deciding this year and needed a quick fix."

Individually, I feel no power in controlling the info age and get the feeling that the media is shoving down everything we think we want down our throats. Collectively, people have control, but there have to be a lot of them in my opinion.

You obviously have no understanding of how the American media works at all. I'd suggest discussing a subject you actually know about or at least brushing up on the basics as to how our news system works.

When I mentioned "Your America" I thought it was implied that I was making a generalization.

As always, a flame is easier than actually contributing to the thread. Then again, you didn't understand my question. This isn't about your "news system" it's about the irony of how Time dissapeared Chavez from the cover but at the same time put on the cover to the people, it's called Social Networking man, read about it.

Could you explain what you mean by this, because I don't follow

I'll try, Aark.

Social Newtorking is all about users. Sites like Myspace, Youtube, deviant art, are fed by the users and their opinions, ideas, etc. Internet is following a very interesting social ideology. There are lots of examples, Wikipedia, Blogger, heck, the very same bittorrent protocol.

Sites like Threadless rely on the users in something called: "Crowdsourcing", which turns every internet user into a graphic freelancer. So, in short Internet has a fair share of "communities" and now with sites like youtube or even ebay, every single internet user can make a living off of the internet, off of the "Community"

Chavez, communities, social networking, you do the math ;)

Which is exactly the problem. You're being a complete idiot on purpose by making rash generalizations since you have nothing to say about the specifics. "Look at me rage against the machine!" doesn't go over well with people who graduated high school.

Not to mention - people who cry foul always play that "I thought it was implied". Stop that. Implying anything over the internet is stupid to begin with - as it's very easy to misconstrue. On top of that, this bullshit that you were attempting to be subtle by implying something is just a bad cover-up for you not being willing to explain yourself. "Oh! I thought you would get it!" is stupid and childish and you need to bring more to a discussion than hollow, half-witted perceptions.

So don't make terrible threads that have no substance? I mean, you bitch about Hugo Chavez not making it to the cover of TIME. Okay, thats nice. Make me care. Did you even attempt that? No. You just said "OH ISNT IT IRONIC THAT CHAVEZ WAS TAKEN OFF THE MAGAZINE COVER AND REPLACED BY THE INTERNET POPULACE"

Do you even know what you're talking about?

You obviously have no idea what the hell "irony" means, if you're attempting to shoehorn it into that sentence.

As for your nonsense of "social networking", leave the empty buzz words to Access Hollywood and try to give your post some plausibility by explaining yourself with words instead of simply throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks.

The Time person of the year is supposed to be the most influential anyways, and really Chavez doesn't cut it at all. Ahmadinejad gets my vote.

Maybe next time, Tawnee, you shouldn't post threads based on reasoning you make when you're high. The power of the people is extremely different from the use of people power.

I totally misread the title and thought this thread said "Yotsuba: Person of the year".

I personally believe it should have been Keith Ellison, not necessarily for his actions, but for his significance. Granted, I'm also from Minnesota, so that might play a sizable role in my choice.

The best thing is, when you go to the Time website for Person of the Year, you first go to an ad page for Chrysler that says, "You might not be person of the year, but at least you can drive like one."

Too bad I am person of the year, Chrysler.

If I were person of the year, which I apparently am, I would not be driving a Chrysler.

Maybe if it were rolling on 24s, that spin and are encrusted with diamonds, but then only maybe. It'd also have to have LCD screens, everywhere, even on the ass of the seats.

You shouldn't forget that it wasn't YouTubers alone who were chosen; myspacers and news bloggers came in the same bunch.

This is bullshit: it feels like a cheap "let's forget about the world and feel good about ourselves" trick.

Forget all the shit that's blowing up in the world, let's feel good about being able to see videos online, stalking slutty 13 years old, and reading college dropout's takes on the news.

Fuck, I am thrilled.

I disagree completely. Time's Person of the Year isn't about making anyone feel good, it's about influence. I can't disagree that this year, youtube, social networking sites, blogs, etc., have become popular enough that they influence millions of opinions.

Why do you think Time is interested in any tricks to make people forget about the events in the world? I mean, that would be... pretty counter-productive for a news magazine.

Personally, I thought it was a disappointing cop out. Maybe I just didn’t agree that the cross section of people they interviewed actually influenced anyone, or rather I couldn’t relate that kind of behaviour to anyone I knew. Maybe the technologies that they described were more about being directed to get one’s 15 minutes of fame rather than being influential forces for change.

I think it was reading the article about Tila Nguyen’s emailing of 30,000+ people to join her myspace which made me think that this is all rather egotistical or just another outlet for self promotion and crass exhibitionism. Seriously, who the hell else behaves like this other than total exhibitionists or spammers? It made me cringe.

Then there’s the underlying issue of the accumulation of “friends” as a commodity. I’m cynical of a process where someone can suddenly be determined to be a “friend” by an action as simple as a mouse click… but that’s another topic entirely.

I thought the whole reason they put 'you' within a computer was to make it so that anyone using a computer and/or the internet (not just bloggers, myspacers, and youtubers) would be considered the person of the year. The way it explained to me is that everyone who was helping to bring in the technology age (which I could swear was already here...) by using the internet is considered 'person of the year'.

And this isnt the first time Time has put a group of people as 'Person of the year'... at one point it was The African-American and at another point it was The American Woman. Really the only qualification for Person of the Year is that you need to affect millions of people in some way.

I do kinda think that this year is a copout though... of course internet users have affected millions... there are millions of internet users affecting each other each day. :rolleyes:

Exactly! And that's the problem with it. Instead of bringing folk's attention to people who really matter in the world, Time copped out with a trendy feel-good answer.

I also agree with Pez: This information age is not really about information at all (although it is available), but about egoism. People who have no idea about what they are saying are garnering more and more voice vs. people who have studied their respective fields and can actually enlighten us. This is crazy. People today too quickly become two bit experts of no real insight who are flaring pussies about their one-sided opinions.

Maybe they should've narrowed the field down to the founders of these websites (youtube, myspace etc etc)?