4 ms·

The World's Most Influential Person Is...

25 points by asmosoinio 18y ago

syaz 18y ago
Isn't this victim of precision hack? http://musicmachinery.com/2009/04/15/inside-the-precision-hack/ http://musicmachinery.com/2009/04/15/inside-the-precision-ha...
- paraschopra 18y ago
  Yep, this is: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1883644_1883653_1884731,00.html http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1...
csbartus 18y ago
the answer is on www.theyrule.net
jokermatt999 18y ago
I cannot believe they actual gave it to him. It was fairly obviously hacked, and it isn't like 4chan has all that much real world influence (excepting when the hive mind decides to do something, but moot isn't at the head of that).
- mtinkerhess 18y ago
  Time acknowledges that the vote was hacked: TIME.com's technical team did detect and extinguish several attempts to hack the vote. I don't think it's obvious that a hack went undetected by Time and gave the vote to Moot. What seems more likely to me is that more people voted for him. Clearly Moot isn't actually as influential as an individual as, say, Barack Obama. But he represents the power of the internet masses, whose influence is proven by his victory.
  - ErrantX 18y ago
    A fair point. But they gamed the whole vote not just his position. The first letters of the first 21 names still spells: "Marblecake also the game" All of the top 21 are in those positions because of the engineering of Anon. - so, basically the vote is worthless. Not so much the masses behind him but a devoted few :)
  - wallflower 18y ago
    I think Time decided it was easier to let him be awarded the win then to award it to someone with less votes. By doing so, Time has probably averted negative hacking, social engineering campaigns against their many web properties (e.g. How can 4chan's followers argue with the results?) It is a bit, tongue-in-cheek, though - they obviously did not drum it up (in the announcement) - as if someone like Obama had one.
  - grunties 18y ago
    That's not an acknowledgement - that's a pitiful attempt to deny that the data they have is worthless, and that they damn-well know it. And then there's apologists such as yourself - trying to tell me that actually Time did 'detect and extinguish' the hack attempts as they claim, but that real users still voted the same way as the disabled hack had attempted to. Purlease. Did they also manage the additional, 20 character message organically too?
  - badger7 18y ago
    "I don't think it's obvious that a hack went undetected by Time and gave the vote to Moot. What seems more likely to me is that more people voted for him." That argument doesn't account for the rest of the hack. We have already had detailed explanations of what they did to 'extinguish' the hack from the hackers, and also how they got around the trivial upgrades to security. That acknowledgement from Time is denial, plain and simple.
marksutherland 18y ago
I remember when I was Time's person of the year back in 2006. Which is to say I'm not sure how much can be read from this. It's amusing they had the wit to run with it and I'm intrigued to see if this does anything to raise the profile of 4chan.
alexkearns 18y ago
What!!! Not me.

25 points by asmosoinio 18y ago

syaz 18y ago

Isn't this victim of precision hack? http://musicmachinery.com/2009/04/15/inside-the-precision-hack/ http://musicmachinery.com/2009/04/15/inside-the-precision-ha...

paraschopra 18y ago
Yep, this is: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1883644_1883653_1884731,00.html http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1...

csbartus 18y ago

the answer is on www.theyrule.net

jokermatt999 18y ago

I cannot believe they actual gave it to him. It was fairly obviously hacked, and it isn't like 4chan has all that much real world influence (excepting when the hive mind decides to do something, but moot isn't at the head of that).

mtinkerhess 18y ago
Time acknowledges that the vote was hacked: TIME.com's technical team did detect and extinguish several attempts to hack the vote. I don't think it's obvious that a hack went undetected by Time and gave the vote to Moot. What seems more likely to me is that more people voted for him. Clearly Moot isn't actually as influential as an individual as, say, Barack Obama. But he represents the power of the internet masses, whose influence is proven by his victory.
- ErrantX 18y ago
  A fair point. But they gamed the whole vote not just his position. The first letters of the first 21 names still spells: "Marblecake also the game" All of the top 21 are in those positions because of the engineering of Anon. - so, basically the vote is worthless. Not so much the masses behind him but a devoted few :)
- wallflower 18y ago
  I think Time decided it was easier to let him be awarded the win then to award it to someone with less votes. By doing so, Time has probably averted negative hacking, social engineering campaigns against their many web properties (e.g. How can 4chan's followers argue with the results?) It is a bit, tongue-in-cheek, though - they obviously did not drum it up (in the announcement) - as if someone like Obama had one.
- grunties 18y ago
  That's not an acknowledgement - that's a pitiful attempt to deny that the data they have is worthless, and that they damn-well know it. And then there's apologists such as yourself - trying to tell me that actually Time did 'detect and extinguish' the hack attempts as they claim, but that real users still voted the same way as the disabled hack had attempted to. Purlease. Did they also manage the additional, 20 character message organically too?
- badger7 18y ago
  "I don't think it's obvious that a hack went undetected by Time and gave the vote to Moot. What seems more likely to me is that more people voted for him." That argument doesn't account for the rest of the hack. We have already had detailed explanations of what they did to 'extinguish' the hack from the hackers, and also how they got around the trivial upgrades to security. That acknowledgement from Time is denial, plain and simple.

marksutherland 18y ago

I remember when I was Time's person of the year back in 2006. Which is to say I'm not sure how much can be read from this. It's amusing they had the wit to run with it and I'm intrigued to see if this does anything to raise the profile of 4chan.

alexkearns 18y ago

What!!! Not me.