1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/15247/finally-a-real-creator-is-person-of-the-year/

Finally, a Real Creator Is Person of the Year

January 7, 2011 by

In 83 years, all but 20 of Time‘s Persons of the Year have been political, military, or international leaders. But the world is changing, and people like Zuckerberg are creating that change. While politicians stand in the way of progress, entrepreneurs like Zuckerberg make it. FULL ARTICLE by Doug French

{ 64 comments }

Colin Phillips January 7, 2011 at 7:58 am

I really like the line “While governments operate in secret, Facebook embraces transparency.” It’s immensely ironic. People have been criticising Time for choosing Zuckerberg over Assange – both of them have been accused of making supposedly private information more available.

Zuckerberg is accused of selling poeple’s “private” information to advertisers (seriously, that personal information about yourself and your private life that YOU shared with hundreds of others on the INTERNET is now in the hands of people who might want to use that information? Shocking!). Assange is accused of, well, treason, for exposing just how petty and childish the average “statesman” really is.

While Zuckerberg certainly has made the biggest contribution so far , the major consequences of Wikileaks are not yet even partially known or understood, and future years may show that the work done by Assange in 2010 formed the watershed which changed society more than facebook ever will. Maybe.

While I applaud Zuckerberg for the contributions he has made to the great conversation which is civilisation, I rather hoped the award would be given to Assange, mostly as a way of shaming the US state into not having him executed.

bobobberson January 7, 2011 at 8:17 am

Im curious what the opinion is of the readers here on the Goldman Sachs deal with Facebook. Didn’t Goldman use funds provided by the treasury through TARP? I’ve heard they’ve repaid, but didn’t they get sweet lines of credit to keep operating and then survive and now are investing in a successful private company.

This is not to malign Facebook, if the bank sees a good investment it will put its money there. Is this a way for FB to ‘buy’ political coverage by offering a sweet investment deal to an organization close to the Federal Government?

Deefburger January 7, 2011 at 11:40 am

As soon as I learned of the Goldman-Sachs deal, I deleted my Facebook. That deal will be the death of Facebook. Goldman will NOT abide by Zuckerburg’s privacy policy and will pressure him into revealing in some way the private histories and data of the Facebook community. Why? They are a large Central Authority (or very cozy with one), and they are suffering from the “knowledge problem” of central planning.

Good bye Facebook, it was fun for time.

Phinn January 7, 2011 at 1:37 pm

I agree. I wish I had never opened a FB account now. I predict that some more privacy problems will continue to pop up, FB’s popularity will fade, its value will plummet, and investors will be swarming to sue Goldman Sachs like the barbarians at the gate.

Facebook appeals to teenagers. College kids, mostly. It became enough of a phenomenon to get some middle-aged old farts like me involved for a while, but its central premise caters to people in their 20s.

It’s too corporate and mainstream to maintain this popularity, and although it may hang around for decades, its popularity has already peaked, and will be revealed to be a fad as much as bell-bottom jeans and Jersey Girl hair ever were.

Plus, the involvement of Goldman Sachs and their government stooges make the whole Facebook experience completely creepy. It feels like I’m papering my own government file.

Facebook went from being a low-cost way to find out what happened to people I knew from high school, to feeling like the 21st century equivalent of getting a Social Security card or registering for Selective Service. And for all I know, it is.

Hard Rain January 7, 2011 at 8:31 am

Maybe Goldman and the other financial firms investing in Facebook are looking forward to the next bubble. Max Keiser has spoken about this a few times, Facebook has potentially 600 million saps that could all become a part of a virtual fiat currency scam, or something to that extent…

Chris January 7, 2011 at 8:34 am

One thing he does have in common with the Government is that his company has been a huge money sink and there is no public evidence that it can ever make enough money to pay back the investment. Isn’t that a destruction of wealth? Do you really believe you could run a business solely from selling advertising to people who are socializing?What happens if energy costs double and unemployment continues to rise? The people using the service the most could have the least value to advertisers. There can be a dis-economy of scale.This is a true experiment unlike any other that I am aware of. If it ends in disaster has Zuckerberg really done anyone a service?

Eric B January 7, 2011 at 10:30 am

By this logic no one should start a new business because the future is unknown.

Stephen Grossman January 7, 2011 at 12:29 pm

The cost of success is potential failure. If you dont try, you cant fail (or succeed). some failures are a cost of the attempts that succeed. And do bureaucrats or Keynsian quacks know in advance which enterprises will succeed? Hello ,North Korea and Soviet Union. Socialists are basically looking for the state to substitute for an omniscient God. I am thy Lord thy Bureaucrat. Thou shalt have no over Bureaucrats before thee. In Bureaucracy we trust. Bureaucracy is salvation. I was lost and Bureaucracy saved me.

Skip Taylor January 7, 2011 at 9:34 am

I wonder if one year makes a trend or a change in a trend. As economists we should understand that true trends are picked up after many observations. The selection of one business person after a long line of others does not change anything.

Dave Albin January 8, 2011 at 9:29 am

That’s what I thought – many observation are required. Also, how influential is Time anymore, anyway? Just because spoiled journalists pick one person each year and put him or her on the cover of their print magazine? I bet if the movie about Facebook had not come out they would not have chosen him.

Norman January 7, 2011 at 10:39 am

Unfortunately Zuckerberg, like many other business leaders such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, is not libertarian in his philosophy. Zuckerberg has declared that he is going to give away all of his money. He is influenced by altrusim and sacrifice to the socialist statetology mentality. Obviously he is a potent money maker, but not one for libertarians and free market advocates to idolize. He belongs on the cover of Time with such peace advocates as Barack Obama and Yasser Arafat.

Silas Barta January 7, 2011 at 10:52 am

Wait, I thought he was a complete leech because he’s asserted IP rights in some of his specific creations, thereby invalidating the argument that he has produced any value for anyone whatsoever?

Or is that just Stephan_Kinsella’s take?

Gil January 7, 2011 at 7:43 pm

Yes, the dastard has made his wealth by excluding others via the force of government. He is a fully-fledged Communist.

greg January 7, 2011 at 11:16 am

Anyone that uses Facebook is a complete nut, all that information that you type into it can be accessed by others. A person I know that owns a small hotel found out about employees stealing from him by accessing their Facebook entries. And you better believe the government is accessing Facebook as well.

As far as this whole system being a stroke of genuis, I don’t think so. It can generate income off of ads, which is an industry that really doesn’t add a lot to increasing productivity. On the other hand, something like Google generates income off adds, but it allows people to better access to the Internet. Facebook offers the user nothing.

The major point I would like to make is that the creation of Facebook, the buildup of it, the media hype and the overspeculation shows you how a bubble is formed and the correction. It has nothing to do with money supply, government spending, taxes or any other thing. It has everything to do with human action as people attempt to get a piece of it and other people that make money getting people to take a piece of it.

Wake up, you are being scammed by a 20 something Harvard dropout.

Bogart January 7, 2011 at 11:22 am

But the whole point is that you as an individual can choose not to participate. I do not have a Facebook account myself as I spend enough time working with computers that I do not need to sink more into it.

Goldman Sachs and the rest of the Fed-Banking Cartel forces you to play with them. And when they lose they get newly created Fed money while if you lose, well that is too bad.

El Tonno January 8, 2011 at 9:36 am

Seconded

greg January 11, 2011 at 9:17 am
Anthony January 7, 2011 at 1:53 pm

“Facebook offers the user nothing”

greg, you are being arrogant when you presume that your preferences are more important than those of other people. That YOU don’t see any benefit to joining facebook does not matter… obviously millions do see a benefit or they would not join.

If there is a bubble then investors will lose, but people using facebook are simply using their own time for an activity that they prefer over the alternatives. You would think that a libertarian would support that kind of thing.

Enjoy Every Sandwich January 7, 2011 at 4:02 pm

“all that information that you type into it can be accessed by others”

Uh, yeah, that’s why I put it there, to be accessed by others. For example, the photos I post are there because I want other people to look at them. Any information I don’t want others to have is information I keep to myself. FB doesn’t have some magical power that forces users to type all of their intimate secrets into it.

greg January 11, 2011 at 6:39 pm

It is clear you don’t understand that the majority of people with top secret clearance are software engineers! And why doesn’t the CEO of Facebook want to go public? It is because he doesn’t want his finances to be made public! If he doesn’t have something to hide, what is the big deal? But yet he needs additional capital!

All of you just type and not think1

Edgaras January 10, 2011 at 3:09 pm

everything you type in the INTERNET can be accessed by others. Legally or illegally. So stop making absurd scenarios, because by your logic, anyone using the internet is complete nut. Including you, sir. No offense.

Douglas Chalmers January 7, 2011 at 11:30 am

This disgustingly warped article must be a real slap in the face for the other individuals (“Facebook was founded by Mark Zuckerberg with his college roommates and fellow computer science students Eduardo Saverin, Dustin Moskovitz and Chris Hughes…” – Wiki) who are also ‘real creators’ of FaceBook in every sense. Same goes for TIME’s 2010 Person of the Year award. Like Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg seems to be the only shareholder left standing of an original creative group…. but who now has usurped the entire plot for his own self-glorification, uhh.

Anon January 7, 2011 at 11:45 am

This punk stole the idea for Facebook from his friends and colleagues. Ideas do not grow on trees, but what do punks know or care about philosophy or ethics. As far as I am concerned he’s a keyboard jockey who wouldn’t be aware of which direction the planet rotates. Maybe that’s the reason for his bovine, socialist, vapid look on the cover of Time magazine. It’s his signature.

And by the way, what has he created? A source for the mindless, mentally blind, American Idol types who also happen to be the darlings of cell phone corporations to air their boring, frivolous, trivial, inane chatter. Those who use Facebook, in general, have nothing substantial to say except “kinder, kuche, kirche”.

J. Murray January 7, 2011 at 11:49 am

I hope you didn’t get your information from the film The Social Network.

Anon January 7, 2011 at 1:03 pm

No, I didn’t. This kid seemed to me to be the kind of individual who couldn’t only _not_ come up with an original idea, but would have no concept of the concept.

Eric B January 7, 2011 at 4:36 pm

Haters are going to hate. Simply put he created a way for many people to communicate that is perceived to be more useful than other social networks out there.

I for one love using facebook, and getting mad at what people say on facebook is the same as getting mad about what people say at lunch. Who cares – if you don’t want to read what someone says on facebook, then don’t add them as a friend.

I also have a book of decent ideas, but my problem is I can’t execute on them. Having an idea is only half the battle, the other is executing it and being successful. You can hate him for “having no ideas” but you can’t say he didn’t execute it well.

Edgaras January 10, 2011 at 3:14 pm

Ideas can not be stolen. If people express their thougths one way or the other, they are giving it away for free and everyone can use it. You want your idea be your property, keep it secret in your head.

Stephan Kinsella January 10, 2011 at 4:10 pm

Benjamin TUcker: “”You want your invention to yourself? Then keep it to yourself.”

http://mises.org/daily/4575

No offense, Silas

skpg January 7, 2011 at 12:53 pm

mises praising this man? What the hell that he do that was so magnificent? Granted facebook is popular, but it’s nothing ground breaking, it’s hardly any different than myspace or twitter. Facebook is a piece of ****, of course not everyone shares my opinion, but come on. Mises you’re discrediting yourseslf when you talk about popular trends. I think your obsession with free market capitalism is making you delusional Doug.

The Anti-Gnostic January 7, 2011 at 1:02 pm

I think the broader point is that an entrepeneur, not a politician, was selected.

As a business model, I agree. Facebook is another AOL in the making. It’s already lost its clean, functional aesthetic as the product becomes skewed increasingly towards the advertisers who actually pay for the bandwidth.

skpg January 7, 2011 at 1:06 pm

Time Magazine always had controversial people as “man of the year”, it’s nothing significant that he isn’t a politician.

Anon January 7, 2011 at 1:07 pm

Oh, I for one share your opinion. But then I resent all “social networking” sites. True Individualism abhores mindless socialising.

Anon January 7, 2011 at 1:09 pm

Oh, I for one share your opinion. But then I resent all “social networking” sites. True Individualism abhores mindless socialising.

Anthony January 7, 2011 at 1:58 pm

Idividualism abhores people who tell other people what to do. If you hate socializing then go live in a pit somewhere and stay off the internet… if “individuals” like talking to their friends then what business is that of yours?

Anon January 7, 2011 at 2:29 pm

Then you shouldn’t be talking to me, right? I am _not_ your friend!

skpg January 7, 2011 at 12:57 pm

Oh and one more thing, if technological advancements deserves praise, than the person who created mozilla firefox should be man of the year, how about Mark Shuttleworth who created Ubuntu. We are living in a time where civilization at it’s worst and the economy is a disaster, facebook doesn’t deserve this type of praise.

Horst Muhlmann January 7, 2011 at 2:00 pm

I agree. When I won in 2006, I wasn’t heaped with as much praise as Zuckerberg.

skpg January 7, 2011 at 5:27 pm

It’s not about praise, the article doesn’t make sense. It’s just stupid and pointless. I don’t even know what Doug is trying to get at.

Aaron B January 7, 2011 at 3:39 pm

Just wondering if anyone else is uncomfortable with Facebook’s close ties to our government agencies.

http://www.helium.com/items/762367-conspiracy-theories-facebooks-connection-to-the-cia?page=2

“The second round of capital funding (US$12.7 million) came from Accel Partners, the venture capital arm of the Accel Group. Members of the Accel Partners board were previously associated with In-Q-Tel, BBN Technologies and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). In-Q-Tel is a venture capital fund formed in 1999 to help the CIA identify and invest in companies developing cutting-edge technologies that could serve the interests of the United States. DARPA once had a project called the Information Awareness Office whose mission was vast information gathering.

In spite of these connections, both Facebook management and CIA deny the accusation of information gathering on Facebook. They maintained that the CIA had setup the Facebook profile mainly for recruiting and marketing purposes. They claimed that the CIA has no direct access to member’s profile.”

Jim January 7, 2011 at 5:51 pm

I don’t know much about the specifics there, but Facebook has always concerned me in that regard. You’re essentially providing a map of everybody that you know and who knows you to the internet. Probably 3/4 of the people I know are on Facebook. Even if you don’t use Facebook, people still digitally declare that they know you or are inviting you to be friends. NSA, FBI and CIA are quite interested in data mining and information processing, and they increasingly focus on domestic surveillance of dissenters and anti-government types (like everyone here). I think Facebook, directly cooperative with US intelligence or not, certainly does them a huge favor regardless of intention. The NSA would never have been able to compile societal maps like Facebook does. The same goes for Google and it’s various methods and services. It is unfortunate that a supposedly free people have to worry about such things.

Capn Mike January 7, 2011 at 8:11 pm

Bingo.

The Feebs were first put onto that kid in Seattle because he called someone in Pakistan. It didn’t matter what he SAID in the calls, just that he was in the ambit.

After that, the setup was begun.

I tell my friends: “Mention my name on Facebook, and I’ll rip yer lungs out”. Well, not actually THAT but severe disapproval. :)

Clearpoint January 7, 2011 at 4:01 pm

Time Magazine is a collectivist rag — part of the central planners’ propaganda machine, and has been since Henry Luce made a deal with the devil (Joseph Stalin — Time Man of the Year — really?). In the rare moment when they’re not heaping undeserved adolation on one of their shining examples of top-down central planning utopia, ala Ben Bernanke last year, or the three horsemen of the apolyptic bailout (Rubin, Summers, and Greenspan) in 1998, they throw us a curveball and award an entrepreneur with the American version of the Nobel. IMO, Zuckerberg (and Bezos before him) were handpicked in an effort to trumpet top-down government planning (Who could ever forget Al Gore, father of the internet?) as the true source of breakthrough innovation, from which all successful entrepreneurial endeavors follow.

Time Magazine has been nothing but consistently socialist since they burst on the scene. Anything published by them must be viewed through their ideological prism of socialism to get a truly accurate feel for their agenda.

Jim January 7, 2011 at 5:40 pm

Even more than the usual who’s who of tyrants and state power apologists, I think my favorite are the hilariously irrelevant ones:

1982 – the computer (not those who make the machines, of course)
1988 – the endangered earth
2005 – the Good Samaritans (Bono and the Gates’)

And the all time best:
2006 – You.

Huh? What did I do to deserve such slander?

whatnext January 7, 2011 at 4:04 pm

Zuckrnberg genious was not inventing FB but screwing his friends and keeping control of it

Jason Stoddard January 7, 2011 at 4:59 pm

Doug, et al., thank you for the thought provoking read.

Over the last year, I’ve been researching search, social and online market phenomenon (ecommerce/social commerce) from a philosophical lens. Whereas this article and others implicitly allude to metaphysical and epistemological subjects, I would appreciate a deeper dive, generally, an article or post that investigates Google and/or Facebook as the first global epistemology and how this effects/influences ethical, socio-political and aesthetic from an Austrian perspective, specifically.

Before closing, this is a great opportunity to thank you, the Mises Institute, its donors and supporters: as an entrepreneur it is both comforting and invigorating that I will always a home on at least one site on the internet. Thanks again for your contribution and the value you and your team create for me and my colleagues in the trenches.

BP January 7, 2011 at 5:03 pm

In a few years when we find out that Facebook was originally financed by DOE money as a voluntary serveillance network, Mr French I believe you will retract these words.

Zuckerberg is a front man for the DOE/CIA .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125×200709

Jim Fox January 7, 2011 at 5:19 pm

Not to take away from Zuckerberg’s creativity, but he is apparently of very questionable character.

J. Murray January 7, 2011 at 6:03 pm

The only problem I have with Facebook is that it’s a thief’s paradise. It’s amazing how stupid people are. Status update: Going out of town for two weeks. Thanks for telling me, how I can take my time taking your stuff.

That and it’s a platform for spam, like all the random updates and feelings of “friends” that happen to be there and crap like Farmville updates. By the time I got rid of all that junk, I was getting no updates and using it like a glorified e-mail client. Needless to say, the account was deleted because I can do that through GMail. It took them two weeks to do it, as if I’d have remorse.

newson January 7, 2011 at 8:28 pm

my thanks to vanmind for posting this link some time ago. a timely warning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpLNlSKugHw

Franklin January 7, 2011 at 10:17 pm

I appreciate Mr. French’s satisfaction that Time magazine’s editorial board is glorifying the face of an entrepreneur instead of the typical face of the state. However, the phenomenon of establishment leftists identifying a “person of the year” is, in itself, an anathema to libertarianism.

A few years ago, Time stumbled upon the truth, identifying “you” as that person. But like the proverbial broken clock, reality was short lived; Time was wrong a few minutes later and those journalistic robots would never really embrace the profound meaning of their 2006 tribute. Many folks still do not.

So as the grocery clerk scans my purchases, I’m confronted with the annual homage to somebody that, I’m told, must be far greater than I, or you. Like an Orwellian metaphor, we are the less significant onlookers, whose value, ‘time’ on this planet, impact to others, private pursuits, personal dreams and independent actions are implicitly less important to the universe’s fabric as that face on the newsstand.

oclisa January 8, 2011 at 4:17 am

Lost me at “creator”

Kanomi Blake January 8, 2011 at 4:26 am

The celebration of Facebook as some sort of triumph of liberty is a dangerously fraudulent premise.Facebook has been lovingly embraced by the crony capitalists and the police state.

Facebook’s COO is Larry Summer’s former Chief of Staff. One of it’s key backers now is Goldman Sachs. In that very TIME article the author cites so lovingly, the director of the FBI shows up to fawn lovingly at the ethically challenged Zuckerberg’s feet.

As to the sterling moral character of French’s new hero, the author shockingly failed to do any basic research.

But what should really concern any self-described Libertarian is the prospect of Facebook as the vanguard of the new, controlled Internet. Here is the Establishment’s view of online freedom, filtered through TIME, as I quoted in my article, ‘A Tale of Two Websites’:

“Right now the Internet is like an empty wasteland: you wander from page to page, and no one is there but you… Anonymity may allow people to reveal their true selves, but maybe our true selves aren’t our best selves. Facebook makes cyberspace more like the real world: dull but civilized. The masked-ball period of the Internet is ending. Where people led double lives, real and virtual, now they lead single ones again…”

“In other words, don’t speak out or speak up. Don’t criticize the government, don’t read WikiLeaks, or you may find your job prospects vanishing. Don’t resist the inexorable machine of the media-intelligence-military-police state.

“Conform. Consume. Obey.”

leon January 8, 2011 at 8:56 am

facebook is a potentially massive invasion of privacy. Also, while I have nothing against Zuckerberg, it is a sign of the times that his achievement is in getting people to waste more time on the web, socializing. Titans of the past actually built real industries, which made the US powerful as well as wealthy. Zuckerberg has created another form of entertainment. Like we need more time vampires.

El Tonno January 8, 2011 at 9:51 am

We read:

“But while politicians make multiple appearances as Time’s person of the year, just making the magazine’s cover has often signaled doom for businesses and trends. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos was Person of the Year in 1999, when his company’s stock was trading near it’s all-time high at $113 per share. Within a year, the stock collapsed by 95 percent.”

Well, there is no causality between Bezos’ mug on the cover page and the stock of his company collapsing. There is a correlation of course, in that the Internet Bubble was about to burst. Any other guy/gal in the “new economy” business on the cover page would have seen the same happening to him/her.

Steve January 8, 2011 at 6:29 pm

Could someone tell me why it is important for the government to gain as much intel possible about the public? I am definitely convinced they use Facebook to gain intel, but I’m not an economist neither a scientist and I wonder why or how they could use this information against us? What is their ultimate goal?

Or if any of you can tell me what book to read. I would appreciate it.
Thanks in advance.

Phinn January 8, 2011 at 6:57 pm

My hypothesis is that they use this kind of program to collect information for use AFTER embarrassing events occur (which is what “terrorism” is really about — embarrassing the ruling class by exposing their impotence). Data mining and “total information awareness” is not about prevention, which is impossible, but about gathering media-valuable information within minutes after symbolic acts of violence occur, and which threaten to undermine the state’s propaganda efforts.

The State does this so they can continue to control the “message” in the wake of Lone Wolf violent actors that try to hijack the media, thereby using such events to the State’s advantage.

Steve January 9, 2011 at 4:37 pm

Oke thanks Phinn, It does make sense. So actually you are saying, If I was able to embarrasse on some way the government, than they would use the information about me to tell the public a whole other story than it actually is. To cover up their impotence or the truth!

Bastards :), instead of taking responsibility about their actions and stand tall with their heads up high they would rather cover the whole thing up. Pittyfull! :)

Thanks again.

Jim January 9, 2011 at 5:00 pm

I am of the opinion that governments are far more concerned with the people inside of their borders than the enemies outside. I base this mainly on the tendency of governments to use all enemies, whether real, exaggerated, or entirely imagined, to impose new controls on their own domestic populations. In the US, should anything truly threaten the ruling class, I would not put it past government to do virtually anything to put down any uprising, even if it means just rounding up potential troublemakers (or their “friends”) pre-emptively, at least on a local basis. And by “rounding up” I don’t mean FEMA camps and all of that stuff. I mean Sheriff comes to your house and reminds you of that overdue out of state parking ticket that you have, and that you have the right to remain silent (see Jeff Tucker’s essay about getting hauled off for running a stop sign). That’s hypothetical, of course. But consider how the FBI, as well as state and city police, have kept and continue to keep profiles on groups that they consider problematic. Not just violent groups or “terrorists” – in fact, often just the opposite – peace organizations, of all things. So I’m not just talking about the government worried about some kind of violent overthrow. Fundamentally, peace is anti-state.

When the intelligence agencies are able to use technology to increase their ability to gather and process intelligence against ANY threat to the state – they try to do just that. And even if external or internal threats were well in hand, they’ll still have to face the fact that their existence as a jobs project (like any government agency) requires them to look useful. Even if the result of the spying is more benign, say, merely better info to politicians for campaign purposes (see US Census Bureau, which actively promotes this ability with incumbent politicians), intelligence agencies can be virtually assured of a budget increase annually without even having to ask.In sum: if government can, it will. That’s just how unreasoned force works.

Roman January 9, 2011 at 4:05 pm

This is a rare instance in which I disagree with the Mises Daily article.

It is true only insofar as it credits Facebook with providing a good service. Lost to this article is the IP hammer Facebook uses to obliterate competition, and strong signs ties with the G-men (links posted in previous comments).

I doubt the possibility of our increasingly authoritarian government recognizing the value of a single dominant social network, and doing what they could to make it so is beyond the imagination of many Mises readers

I use and enjoy Fb, but have more suspicion than praise for the Time’s man of the year — and more so now that he’s won the award.

Mark January 9, 2011 at 10:27 pm

I wouldn’t celebrate too much. The left is grooming him as another billionaire source of funds.

I also submit that the time person of the year is not of sufficent import to deliberate on.

Franklin January 10, 2011 at 3:22 pm

Would that the rest of the world felt as you.

Sione January 9, 2011 at 10:45 pm

Mark

Indeed.

Sione

Edgaras January 10, 2011 at 3:23 pm

“facebook is a potentially massive invasion of privacy. ”

WTF are you talking people? WHOLE INTERNET is potentially massive invasion of privacy.

Chris January 19, 2011 at 8:23 pm

Doesn’t Facebook make it’s money by having it’s logo (and link) to it’s site exist on other sites and other places? And a good portion of the value of that logo lies in it’s copyright/trademark. I am curous how/if the Austrian view on intellectual property reconciles with this.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: