iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Larry Magid

Larry Magid

Posted: December 15, 2010 11:52 AM

I agree with Time's selection of Mark Zuckerberg as person of the year.

With a membership approaching 600 million, there is no denying that Zuckerberg has -- by some measures -- direct influence on more lives than most of the world leaders. But that's only a small part of what makes him an important world figure. He's changing the way people think about relationships and, most important, how we organize and share the information and images that are the core of our lives.

Zuckerberg isn't just the founder and CEO of an influential company; he's also the architect of the notion that sharing information among a wide group of people can actually be beneficial. Like it or hate it, but Zuckerberg's passion to get people to be at least semi-public with their name, photo, school and work place is an important part of his ideology. He wants people to be findable and truly believes that people's lives with be enhanced if they use the Internet to interact with those they care about. Obviously, a lot of people agree. Just about everyone I know -- even people who rail against Facebook's privacy policies --is now on Facebook.

Growing Up and Evolving

As someone who has observed and interviewed Zuckerberg over the years, I can also say that he too is evolving. When I met him a few years ago, I found him not only shy but awkward and off-putting, but over the past few months I've seen a different Zuckerberg emerge. With a couple of notable exceptions, I've found him to be relaxed, direct and often funny. The guy who Leslie Stahl interviewed a couple of Sundays ago on 60 Minutes is the real Mark Zuckerberg -- not the one depicted by Aaron Sorkin in The Social Network.

Sharing Not Necessarily Dangerous

The most controversial aspect of Zuckerberg is the way Facebook treats personal information, but encouraging people to share isn't necessarily a bad thing. As someone who's been involved in online safety since almost since the term was coined, I've put a lot of thought over the years about what information people ought to share and who they should share it with. There was a time when most of us in the online safety world believed that we -- and especially children -- should keep our personal lives personal and avoid going online to share where we live, where we go to school and what we look like. But Zuckerberg changed that by encouraging people to do just that. And it turns out, according to the Crimes Against Children Research Center, that sharing personal information isn't necessarily dangerous, even for adolescents.

Of course, that doesn't mean we should share everything with everyone but, to his credit, Zuckerberg did build tools into Facebook that allow people to limit access to most of what they post. Some have criticized Facebook about the complexity of those tools and because users have to opt-out of some of some sharing, but at least the tools are there.

Zuckerberg didn't just change the way we socialize. He changed the way many people do business (companies using Facebook to reach out to consumers) and has even influenced the way we evaluate and pick our elected leaders. And he's not stopping. Even as I write, engineers at Facebook are working on new ways to get people to share information and photos. But Facebook isn't all technology. In an interview a few months ago, Zuckerberg talked about how human interactions -- people tagging and friending each other -- can be more powerful than algorithms when it comes to bringing people together.

I don't know if Facebook will even be around 10 years from now, but I do know that social networking -- however we define it -- will have an even bigger impact on our lives.


Larry Magid is co-author of A Parents' Guide to Facebook (a free 34 page booklet) and co-director of ConnectSafely.org, a non-profit Internet safety organization that receives financial support from several technology companies including Facebook.

 

Follow Larry Magid on Twitter: www.twitter.com/larrymagid

 
 
  • Comments
  • 30
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
11:19 PM on 12/15/2010
Facebook might have made sense 5 years ago
Or rather myspace, wikipedia or youtube might have made sense 5 years ago

As most everyone is saying, the obvious choice was Assange. Time clearly didn't choose him for political reasons.
Which is why I don't purchase Time magazine
photo
bohratom
Jersey born and capitalist lover.
10:54 PM on 12/15/2010
Facebook is so fictional...I should know, I have 7 accounts all fictional and one has 100+ friends...too funny to even talk about
photo
bohratom
Jersey born and capitalist lover.
10:53 PM on 12/15/2010
First let me say I have 7 facebook accounts. All 7 are fictional, in fact one has 100+ friends about being some god forsaken former athlete that had his knee disabled. Now we want other sites to just let us login as facebook users so that my 7 fictional sweep over the web....

wow, thats so cool......
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
breakingpoint
War is a Racket - Smedley Butler
09:05 PM on 12/15/2010
I think he's the right pick for Time - this choice demonstrates just how dumbeddown the American People really are
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
brothers3
Mankind In Its Vanity Keeps Us From Our Sanity
07:24 PM on 12/15/2010
Used to read Time when I was young and dumb.
06:59 PM on 12/15/2010
The idea that Facebook has had more impact over the last year than Wikileaks is absurd. Time is merely showing us that it's part of the same repressive structure as Paypal, Visa and Mastercard.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Marcospinelli
an old liberal Democrat, a 'New Deal'-Democrat
06:32 PM on 12/15/2010
Let's share some information:


xMoonWalkerx   2 hours ago (4:21 PM)

My understanding is that wikileaks tried to work with the US govt to redact sensitive info but was rebuffed




That's true, and most interestingly was the reason given for the government's refusal, that it would be akin to cooperating with hostage-takers.

Not weeks later, Obama said of his 'deal' over retaining Bush's tax cuts for the richest 1%:  


THE PRESIDENT:  Well, let me use a couple of analogies.  I’ve said before that I felt that the middle-class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high-end tax cuts.  I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage-takers, unless the hostage gets harmed.  Then people will question the wisdom of that strategy.  In this case, the hostage was the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed.
06:00 PM on 12/15/2010
Couldn’t the editors of Time Magazine have a little more intellectual aptitude and give their annual award to someone or a group of people who have tried to make the world we live in a better place, instead of just someone who gave the Internet a place for self obsessed people to post their photos and ask you to water their crops in Farmville?
While it is impossible to only distinguish only one person as a person of the year, a more accurate reflection of the world in 2010 would have a list of the top ten most influential people of 2010. Instead of the politically correct and advertiser friendly version submitted by editors at Time Magazine, the following list comprises a more intellectual and realistic look at the most important people of 2010.
1. Julian Assange - Internet freedom advocate
2. Bradley Manning – whistle blower
3 Liu Xiaobao – 2010 Nobel Peace Prize Winner
4. Chilean Miners – dangers that blue collar workers face everyday
5. The Unemployed American – victim of broken economy and a declining world power
6 Steve Jobs – iPods, iPads, and iPhones- enough said
7. Independent Internet blogs
8 Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert – political humor at its best
9. Don’t touch my junk guy – the dangers of a country unable to stop perpetual war and a powerful central government
10. BP CEO Tony Hayward – the face of corporate negligence and arrogance
06:20 PM on 12/15/2010
Beautiful !
photo
darquelourd
You Get What You Play For
04:59 PM on 12/15/2010
gee, somday we'll wake up and put this all in perspective. The founder of an electronic scrapbook who sells all your information to other sources ... it's hard to say whether the man isn't some kind of deviant criminal mastermind and whether we are not clueless dupes, but such is the nature of our world
05:42 PM on 12/15/2010
Holy shit. Some who gets it...

We need to look at face-value not face-book.
04:35 PM on 12/15/2010
Sorry, but I don't trust facebook or social media sites in general - won't use 'em.
Did you see this about the 12-year old whose facebook site was infiltrated because he protested the closing of his youth center?
http://crooksandliars.com/node/42323/print

And by the way, Time magazine is irrelevant. Assange is The Man of The Year 2010 whatever they might dictate.
04:43 PM on 12/15/2010
Yes, absolutely!
04:11 PM on 12/15/2010
Should Wikileaks founder Juilan Assange have won the Time Person of the Year for 2010 over Mark Zuckerberg? Why or why not? Join the conversation with others here: http://bit.ly/f2peeg
photo
darquelourd
You Get What You Play For
04:59 PM on 12/15/2010
once again the internet as waste of time
photo
Blodo
Time to build a better world
05:21 PM on 12/15/2010
Waste of time? How about posting to threads in online news magazines?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mr Sick Of Greed
03:42 PM on 12/15/2010
Facebook = over hyped.....this kind of technology is ever involving.....someone else will come up with ideas just the same, some will work, some won't.....
i just don't get the hype with facebook......but to each his own
photo
darquelourd
You Get What You Play For
05:00 PM on 12/15/2010
once people get sick of being virtually connected this will all be over Thank God
photo
gymmy
Your generic alternative counter-psyops choice!
03:42 PM on 12/15/2010
Time probably decided the real POTY (Assange) was too controversial so they selected a -less- meaningful controversial type, with Zuckerberg..... I'm sure Time Inc's big bank creditors are very pleased with the selection.... hooray.
04:44 PM on 12/15/2010
yup
photo
darquelourd
You Get What You Play For
05:01 PM on 12/15/2010
probably based on ad revenues and focus groups
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:14 PM on 12/15/2010
Oh there's going to be a revolution against Facebook that you can count on. In fact it's already started in case no ones noticed.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:53 PM on 12/15/2010
The fact that Zuckerberg has any relevance at all is what is wrong with America and the Internet. FB produces nothing.
02:07 PM on 12/15/2010
Thank You !
03:25 PM on 12/15/2010
"FB produces nothing."

Profit for marketers and FB. We should say that FB produces nothing worthwhile.