Best "Person of the Year" pick in this decade

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Felt like doing this.

So, best pick of the decade?

Funny how both the first and the last are someone whose name ends in -burg.

[Mr. Smith]

Pope Francis.

[morgankingsley]

I know for a fact that Zuckerberg is the worst out of all of them, and that I would never understand how such a man would be even considered for this. I mean, I get it, he created facebook. But that does not mean that he deserves to be considered the greatest person of that year by any means, and I think that with him listed as such, the very standards of being considered person of the year just plummets

[Nutmeg]

I know for a fact that Zuckerberg is the worst out of all of them, and that I would never understand how such a man would be even considered for this. I mean, I get it, he created facebook. But that does not mean that he deserves to be considered the greatest person of that year by any means, and I think that with him listed as such, the very standards of being considered person of the year just plummets

It's not necessarily the person who's had the most positive influence, but rather had the most influence, good or bad, on the events of the year. On this basis, they chose Hitler in 1938 and Stalin in 1939. Though they chose not to select bin Laden in 2001.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Obama , but that yr, I would of picked also Tyler Perry

[Progressive Pessimist]

Not Trump.

I really don't know.

[JGibson]

The Silence Breakers in 2017.

[T'Chenka]

Thunberg 2019. I would have picked Obama 2008 if that was an option, but think Greta 2019 is a better choice than Obama 2012.

[Continential]

I know for a fact that Zuckerberg is the worst out of all of them, and that I would never understand how such a man would be even considered for this. I mean, I get it, he created facebook. But that does not mean that he deserves to be considered the greatest person of that year by any means, and I think that with him listed as such, the very standards of being considered person of the year just plummets

Because Facebook was cool in 2010

[Middle-aged Europe]

I know for a fact that Zuckerberg is the worst out of all of them, and that I would never understand how such a man would be even considered for this. I mean, I get it, he created facebook. But that does not mean that he deserves to be considered the greatest person of that year by any means, and I think that with him listed as such, the very standards of being considered person of the year just plummets

It's not necessarily the person who's had the most positive influence, but rather had the most influence, good or bad, on the events of the year. On this basis, they chose Hitler in 1938 and Stalin in 1939. Though they chose not to select bin Laden in 2001.

I guess they decided not to chose Bin Laden in 2001 out of fear that people wouldn't "get" that Time Person of the Year isn't actually suppossed to be an award for being a great person.

Ayatollah Khomeini won in 1979, so the question is whether people just got a whole of a lot dumber between then and 2001 or if the editorial board just assumed as much.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm in a "trigger the cons" type of mood today, so Greta.

[Nutmeg]

I know for a fact that Zuckerberg is the worst out of all of them, and that I would never understand how such a man would be even considered for this. I mean, I get it, he created facebook. But that does not mean that he deserves to be considered the greatest person of that year by any means, and I think that with him listed as such, the very standards of being considered person of the year just plummets

It's not necessarily the person who's had the most positive influence, but rather had the most influence, good or bad, on the events of the year. On this basis, they chose Hitler in 1938 and Stalin in 1939. Though they chose not to select bin Laden in 2001.

I guess they decided not to chose Bin Laden in 2001 out of fear that people wouldn't "get" that Time Person of the Year isn't actually suppossed to be an award for being a great person.

Ayatollah Khomeini won in 1979, so the question is whether people just got a whole of a lot dumber between then and 2001 or if the editorial board just assumed as much.

I'm going to go with "both"

But also maybe choosing Hitler in 1938 wouldn't have been as provocative as choosing him after the U.S. already was at war with Germany starting in 1941? Just a thought.

[DINGO Joe]

I voted Obama when the poll first came up, but feel bad that no one has voted for the Ebola fighters.  I mean many many medical workers in Africa died fighting that.

[Middle-aged Europe]

But also maybe choosing Hitler in 1938 wouldn't have been as provocative as choosing him after the U.S. already was at war with Germany starting in 1941? Just a thought.

Yeah, Hitler was probably a less controversial figure in the United States in 1938 than he was in 1942 or in 2019... especially given the large number of German-Americans in the U.S., the fact that World War II or the Holocaust hadn't even started yet, and the prevalence of racism and anti-Semitism in American society back then. Nazi Germany's anti-Semitism without the Holocaust probably seemed significantly less bad in the society of 1938 than it does with the Holocaust in the society of 2019. So, it's maybe also a bit of a "they give Arafat the Nobel Peace Prize!" situation.

[HillGoose]

MERKEL

[GeneralMacArthur]

The Protestor (2011).  The influence of all three movements is still felt to this day.  Occupy and Tea Party both morphed into the anti-establishment know-nothing bases of their respective parties, with Trump getting elected via the Tea Party and Sanders gaining inordinate power via the Occupy alumni.  Meanwhile there are still several wars ongoing in the Middle East that are directly linked to the Arab Spring.  Clear #1.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The Silence Breakers in 2017.

[SingingAnalyst]

Excellent, excellent question.

While none of the 10 choices is either particularly good--or particularly bad--I picked the Ebola Fighters (2014), for reasons I will explain. I will also state my ranked-choice vote; the difference between the Ebola Fighters and Number 10 is rather small.

Of the 10! = 3,628,800 possible rankings (assuming one must rank all 10), I believe a good case could be made for any of them.

First, one's choices will be swayed by one's worldview, and where one wants to see the world 20, 50, 100 years from now. One who abhors the Catholic Church and wants to see it die out is not going to pick Pope Francis for her or his top three (unless she or he believes the Holy Father is secretly working to destroy the Church, which he isn't).

Second, one can use any number of criteria in ranking: the perceived good/evil of the particular choice (few argued at the time that Hitler 1938 and Khomeini 1979 were chosen for their inherent goodness); the intensity of their impact on the world; the context in which they work (particularly if it goes against the Zeitgeist). Since I have a hard time "teasing these apart", here are my overall rankings, with explanations. Again, the difference between 1 and 10 is rather small.

1. The Ebola Fighters: What could be more unpleasant, yet rewarding, than entering a diseased population with the intention of fighting a painful and destructive disease-- and succeeding? The work is unglamorous, so in a society transfixed (as we were in late 2014) by the Ice Bucket Challenge, Kimye, Taylor, and thigh gaps, I say Kudos to Time for this choice.

2. Angela Merkel: While it has changed over the last 30, 40, 50 years, historically not many women have had the position on the world stage as Merkel. Her efforts in healing a nation deeply divided over the refugee issue rightfully earned her her title in 2015.

3. The guardians: We often forget what dangerous work it is being a journalist in many parts of the world, including the US at times, and what an important role they play in society.

4. Obama: His re-election proved that his 2008 election was not simply a reaction to the recession: he had performed respectably well as President, after boldly coming out for SSM in 2012 to the predictable GOP reaction ("thanks for handing us the election, Obama"). (Sandy Hook heroine Victoria Soto was a popular second choice that year)

5. Zuckerberg: Like or hate him, has the ubiquity of Facebook changed our lives since 2008? (Yes.)

6. Pope Francis: his cautious embrace of openness to gays signaled a possible, if slow, sea change in perhaps the world's largest religious group.

7. Trump: Trump has been well-known (and not particularly well-liked) since the 1980s. But again, like or hate him, his election was not expected either in June 2015 or November 7, 2016.

8. Protesters: they deserve a nod, certainly, but what exactly are they protesting? Perhaps the Hong Kong protesters, facing the brutal treatment they are, would have made 2019 a more appropriate year for this recognition.

9. Greta Thunberg: Yes, she has helped raise our awareness. But is she not a bit awkward being in the spotlight? And will this award exacerbate the problem? A number of young inventors have designed things that would actually help with client change. Nick Sandmann also sought to change the world and get his message out, and-- dare I say-- his media coverage was perhaps just a bit less laudatory than Thunberg's?

10. MeToo: Someone had to be #10, and I choose this. I want and seek a world in which sexual assault survivors are unafraid to speak up-- and it is good that the deeds of Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein, Roy Moore, and others have been exposed. But the movement was already immune from criticism: anyone who questioned an alleged victim, or argued that due process was necessary to be upheld, ran the risk of being called a "rape apologist". Plus we have the political nature of the movement: the woman whose organization helped find Roy Moore's alleged victims has a daughter who worked for an organization which tried to smear Harvey Weinstein's alleged victims (until public outrage forced it to back down).

[John Dule]

What Zuckerberg has done to our world will have major ramifications long, long after we are all dead.