4 ms·
Facebook isn't a 2010 phenomenon. 2010 was the year Wikileaks changed the world.
by lwhi 16y ago
Facebook isn't a 2010 phenomenon.
2010 was the year Wikileaks changed the world.
- hexis 16y agoYes, but in 2010 Facebook had a movie. No doubt Assange will be Man of the Year in 2012, when they make a movie about him.
- ugh 16y agoWikileaks is grade A movie material, by the way. Will be nice to see who picks that up.
- rmc 16y agoProbably not an American Film studio.
- jokermatt999 16y agoThey're already on it, from what I've heard. Look up information on "Wikirebels" (I can't find a good source at the moment).
- jasonlotito 16y agoWhat has changed with the Wikileaks prior to the last set? Wikileaks is also not just a 2010 phenom.
- lwhi 16y agoI believe Wikileaks reached 'climax' (for want of a better word) in 2010.
- jasonlotito 16y agoI'd hope not. If we've felt the full ramifications of Assange and WL already, then Time's criteria and choice were far more correct then we realize.
- linhir 16y agoCan someone explain to me how Wikileaks changed the world? I'm not trying to be provocative, but seriously what is all that different now than it was two months ago?
- lwhi 16y agoWhen Google hit the world stage, arguably the concept of personal privacy became null and void. When Wikileaks hit the world stage, arguably the concept of a nation state's right to privacy became null and void. Because some people (Assange and others) have dared to release these documents into the public domain, a radical precedent has been set. I believe it will be very difficult to go back to a time where governmental secrecy is an unchallenged aspect of modern life.
- zeemonkee 16y agoThe technology is nothing new, I'd grant you. However, in historical context, Wikileaks is (very likely) revolutionary. Wikileaks challenges the whole concept of closed government. Governments have assumed that they can keep secrets, whether out of national or selfish interest. Suddenly that's not true any more. Any secret will eventually become public. And there's little you can do - national newspapers and TV stations can be dealt with, but how can you shut down a server on the other side of the world ? And if you do, so what ? The secrets are on a million sites and torrents. For good or ill, this changes the way governments, especially democratic governments, do business. If you know that your innermost secrets will be revealed, not in 40 years time but in tomorrow's evening news, how do you conduct affairs of state ? Maybe this is something we've all realized for a long time, but only now, it appears, do governments realize the full implications of what "World Wide Web" really means.
- linhir 16y agoI guess I'm just unwilling to grant the point that the idea of closed government is dead. If anything, the reaction to this leak may be worse than the disease. But, nonetheless, these were a ton of `secret' cables. They were embarrassing, they make it more difficult to conduct foreign affairs, but they were not actually that destructive or informative. For two key reasons: 1) The cables are the opinions of low-level functionaries, no matter how good they are at their job. These were not TS cables, they did not include a shocking set of information. In fact, it is all sort of "meh, we pretty much knew that. 2) "The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets. Many governments -- some governments deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation." The first point is that we pretty much didn't learn anything, and the second is that it won't really matter.