Image Credit: Tony Avelar/Bloomberg/Getty ImagesFacebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been named TIME’s 2010 Person of the Year, and the 26-year-old billionaire talked to the magazine about himself, his company’s future, and that blockbuster movie about his life. “I found it funny what details they focused on getting right in [The Social Network],” Zuckerberg told TIME. “I think I owned every single T-shirt that they had me wearing. But the biggest thing that thematically they missed is the concept that you would have to want to do something — date someone or get into some final club — in order to be motivated to do something like this. It just like completely misses the actual motivation for what we’re doing, which is, we think it’s an awesome thing to do.”
Zuckerberg edged out the Tea Party, Julian Assange, Hamid Karzai, and the Chilean miners for the annual honor.
Read more:
Mark Zuckerberg pledges to give away half his fortune
‘Oprah’: Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg (officially) gives away $100 million on show
Mark Zuckerberg says ‘The Social Network’ got his clothing exactly right
Mark Zuckerberg on ‘The Simpsons.’ Click here if you Like
Yes, Mark is an important guy. But since he had nothing to do with the Oscar-possible The Social Network, what exactly did he do THIS YEAR. While I knew Time wouldn’t play with the politics, the only choice for the person who made the biggest impact this year- Julian Assange. Love him or hate him- he actually DID something.
yea, something illegal, he is accused of rape
I feel like you just raped me with that comment.
He’s accused of having sex without condom, so called “sex by surprise”. Apparently only a crime in Sweden.
Actually, among other things, one of the alleged victims accused him of having decidedly nonconsensual sex with her while she was asleep, and the other has accused him of “using his body weight to hold [her] down in a sexual manner.”
Enola certainly seems to be big on the rights of women. I’m sure to him it’s consensual if the girl is still barely consicious.
That’s what I thought too. It seems like the movie’s the only reason he’s getting this. Dumb.
He did give all that money to the Newark school system. I’m not defending the guy. Despite his interviews on 60 Minutes and in The New Yorker, I’m still inclined to think there’s something vaguely shady about him. Still, that charity was a really good thing that should not be discounted.
And I’m sure that wasn’t a PR move aimed at counter-acting the movie at all.
BLB, yeah we should always be wary of people who give millions of dollars to charity. Why the hell should we care why he did it? When was the last time you gave that much to anything?
@E – Thank you! I’m so sick of people saying “Oh, they only gave that much money because of this or that.” Hate it! Who cares the reasons that charity is given? It’s their karma/heaven/hell, etc. Let them give as much money to needy organizations in the meantime…even if we have have to “save” their image.
I give almost half of what I make away to different organizations. Obviously that’s not as much as zuckerberg but comparatively I’m doing more.
@BLB, well, let’s just say that you are, too, giving away half of what you make just to make yourself look better.
Zuckerberg is a champion of spying and privacy compromise and is a corporate lap dog of the political elite do you work for the CIA was it sitting next to bush Shame on you Time
zuckerberg its not the money that motivates you and its not facebook or democracy its the thief of facebook you STOLE the name facebook you STOLE the idea and the CONCEPT facebook and it is this that motivates you THIS is you zuckerberg concealing the TRUTH and you are following a psychological profile of a THIEF
THEN we have divya navendra says facebook is his idea and the winklevoss and there is wayne chang and paul ceglia and zuckerberg simply saw a opportunity chance to steal the idea facebook
david kirkpatrick was given all the emails and was made fully aware of how zuckerberg stole facebook in the beginning kirkpatrick given 80% of the emails kirkpatrick then ask if there was more ‘ yes there is more but ask kirkpatrick that he must reveal the truth the other 20% was email from paul ceglia
AND YOU CALL FACEBOOK AND ZUCKERBERG A ROAD TO DEMOCRACY ITS A SET UP JUST LIKE IRAQ
where you promote politicians to be used like puppets to promote bush idea of democracy democracy is a choice dic and the leaks have made it harder for western governments to dupe their citizens into accepting potential future wars
JULIAN IS THE CLEAR WINNER
I would have picked Assange too… but TIME hasn’t selected a “bad guy” in nearly 30 years because the average American can’t comprehend that Person of the Year is not an endorsement, but rather just the person who made the biggest impact. For instance, in 2001 the Person of the Year was unquestionably Osama bin Laden and yet they went with Guiliana to avoid a backlash.
You mean Guiliani the former NYC mayor, not Guiliana the E! personality : )
It can’t be Assange. American media is ignoring him.
He actually may have meant Giuliana, if you lived in NYC while he was mayor you would understand.
It’s not about impact or what they did. The Person of the Year is based on media coverage throughout the year. We’ve certainly heard more about MZ and FB than we have about Assange in 2010.
Reference please? (And good luck finding that)
Actually Juneau, Time’s Person of the Year is “for better or for worse, …has done the most to influence the events of the year.” Again, I have to ask- what did MZ do, in 2010, that was so influential?
I think, Lauren, you are misinterpreting the quote you cited. You did’t say that he person done anything this year to even get the title. You said they influenced other events of the year. Events like, say, Facebook nearly doubling its amount of users? the release of one of the best pictures of year?
I don’t understand why people can’t just READ THE TIME ARTICLE and see their explanation for choosing him instead of complaining about him ad nauseam? Or is everyone now incapable of digesting information longer than a few blurbs?
The Chilean Miners were considered? Really? Good luck to them and all but they did not deserve to be considered for this. I’m a little confused as to why Zuckerberg is getting it now too. Maybe a year or two ago. Way to be cutting edge Time.
They got trapped in a hole and had mistresses.
I thought after 60 Minutes used nearly the whole hour to pimp this guy, my annoyance level had finally peaked. Now this. I have a Facebook account, and it’s fun. But really, it’s not revolutionary.
NOT revolutionary? FB has changed the world and how we communicate. Retailers use it, charities use it, politicians use it. You must not have very many FB friends to make such a statement.
What is this Time that you speak of?
is it just me or does mark look just like tim tebow in this picture
Mark is Jewish. Tim Tebow would not be happy with your comment. Mark Zuckerberg would be a better person if he spent just 10 minutes with Tim Tebow.
Did you intend for your comment to come across as anti-Semetic? ‘Cuz it did.
Yes. Tim Tebow doesn’t like the Jews because they were responsible for the death of his Lord and savior.
It’s called sarcasm, @C, and it is intended to be dig at Tim Tebow, not Mark Zuckerberg or the Jewish faith.
meg – have you accepted Tim Tebow into your life? I’m guessing you haven’t. You should. You’ll be a much happier and fulfilled person if you do.
I have not. I am a pagan who prefers to worship many false idols, including Kyle Orton.
Jeez, Meg, if you’re going to worship false idols, worship one that looks good naked, like Tom Brady.
Maybe if he cut that stupid mop top, I would like him again.
Meg – I’d like to talk to you about Tim Tebow. We should get together. We could also act out some of Assange’s alleged crimes if you want.
That might be difficult. I am a very light sleeper.
Above exchange = awesome. I would like to be your friend.
Thank you C Men and Meg for that exchange. I just laughed out loud in my office and got some great stares.
I think the movie was more interesting than Mark actually is…LOL on Tim Tebow.
Definitely, considering that in real life he’s had the same girlfriend for years (no dramatic breakup scene), the real Eduardo wasn’t friends with him (and actually deserved to be fired), and he most likely didn’t snort coke off strippers.
He never snorted coke off of strippers in the movie.
I’ve read from other sources that some dispute his claim to be dating his current girlfriend at the time. Are these sources lying or is he fibbing a little in an effort to discredit a movie that doesn’t paint him flatteringly?
Facebook sucks. Too many privacy issues. Too many people getting hacked and spam being sent out.
Julian Assange deserves to be the person of the year.
ok im sorry if that came off as racist all i was saying was that he looked like mr tebow i didnt think there was nothing racist about it but appently i was wrong so to mr zuckerberg and to everyone here im deeply sorry i dont hate on any race i really dont.
You need to apologize to Tebow before he smites you.
How did Tim Tebow not get the Time Person of the Year title? I bet Time is run by non-Christians.
Julian Assange has a very “hey, look at me” attitude that sort of undermines (for me, at least)all of his work. With him, it’s not about freedom of information, it’s about HIM providing that information. He loves the spotlight, the theatrics of it all. Zuckerberg’s motives, on the other hand, are unclear, which makes him a little more interesting to me. I agree with Time’s decision.
So agree with you about Assange, but I’d argue that’s exactly what makes him a better pick for Person of the Year. For better or for worse, he really represents that unquenchable thirst for fame that seems endemic to our modern society. He’s like a mashup of a reality star and an internet activist.
I totally agree, and he’s a enormous symbol of how media, including entertainment and “new” media, and politics/political affairs are so intertwined in our current culture.
Yes, very well put.
The bottom line is if The Social Network had not been released this year he wouldn’t have won it. Does that mean Fincher should have won? (kidding)
Not surprised with the choice. Where would politicians and celebrities/reality stars/athletes be without Facebook or Twitter this year? A lot of news sources now start with (fill in blank) posted this on their Facebook/Twitter account.
They’d be doing the exact same things, we’d just hear about them a few hours later.
I see a new movie coming for Fincher: The Social Leak
To everyone : read the article (10 pages essay) and then comments. You might have a better understanding of why he deserves this title.
10 pages? Are you crazy? I’ll just roll with my limited knowledge of him and make wild assumptions and accusations.
@ C Men….hahahaha !! Right ??!! I’ll make the same assumptions instead of reading 10 pages !! Guy isn’t worth it
I actually read it. Interesting. Didn’t convince me he deserved to be named this year’s person of the year but what the hay I’ll just assume they’re making up for not doing it in a previous, more appropriate, year.
I think MZ is a great choice. Didn’t his website reach 500 MILLION members this year? That’s huge. That’s more than … and I could go on but I won’t.
Also he does put a lot of time into making sure Facebook helps people connect while remaining free and easy to use. It’s constantly changing and he listens to the members and what they want.
He changed the face of social networking–i.e. Facebook.
this is what America is now. Not someone who is working for peace in the Middle East not someone who is close to curing AIDS not the face of an American private in one of the many wars we are opting to fight. No some idiotic brat who made millions laughing at fools who can’t connect like normal human beings so they have to hide behind computers etc and call it social media/networking.
My thoughts exactly! A poor choice if you ask me.