Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Julian Assange Could Be Time's 'Person Of The Year', And Is Also Still Not Dead (time.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the watching-WikiLeaks dept.

Long-time Slashdot reader cstacy noticed Saturday that Julian Assange hadn't made any communications or public appearances in six weeks. But today an anonymous reader writes: Julian Assange is still not dead, reports The Inquisitr, noting "the WikiLeaks founder made his first appearance in weeks, speaking with an interviewer for a conference in Beirut" including comments about the recent death of Fidel Castro.

Assange is also in the running to be chosen as "Person of the Year" in Time magazine's annual online reader's poll, and last Monday even moved briefly into first place, inching past Donald Trump. "It's worth noting that the poll presents people alphabetically," Time reported, "so Assange is the first option participants consider and Trump comes near the end of the poll."
I think the poll's being hacked by state actors, since Vladimir Putin now leads with 38%, followed by Theresa May (16%) and North Korea leader Kim Jong Un (13%), and Donald Trump is locked in a tie for fourth place with India Prime Minister Narendra Modi at 9%. Time worked with Opentopic and IBM's Watson to assemble the initial list for reader's votes, which also included Apple CEO Tim Cook and FBI director James Comey. Surprisingly, a few celebrities also turned up on the list too, including comedian Samantha Bee, Hamilton creator Lin-Manuel Miranda, and Olympic gymnast Simone Biles.

26 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. Time's "Person of the Year" is not chosen by poll by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not by an online poll at the very least.

    This is a reader poll. It's a different thing and like any other internet poll it means very little.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  2. Trump has to be #1 (unless they hate him) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Trump is always in the news either because of his own scandalous mouthing (or thumbing) off or because of his haters' constant hate and prejudices. He basically won the highest position on Earth by being in the news all the time.

    With his "influence", he already killed the TPP as a side-effect of not yet taking office and he moved the powerful USD up and down for the past 6 months.

    Maybe undisclosed "Russian hackers" can be runner up..

    1. Re:Trump has to be #1 (unless they hate him) by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2

      As much as the leftist media hates Trump, they were completely unable to shut up about him all year long. I was worried the word "TRUMP" would be burned into my TV screen from flipping to the CNN story title. Their incessant coverage probably put him over the finish line.

  3. Better choice by Kohath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Nigel Farage

  4. Re:Time's "Person of the Year" is not chosen by po by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 3, Informative

    Indeed. He already won a prior reader poll, and Time chose someone else. There's no reason to think they won't do the same this time as well.

  5. I propose by youngone · · Score: 2
    Ivan Vicelich should be man of the year

    Also everyone should come to my apartment to see my cats.

  6. Big whoop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Big whoop, I was Time's Person of the Year 2006. Didn't mean a thing.

  7. Was about to mod +1 funny when I read... by zedaroca · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the poll's being hacked by state actors, since Vladimir Putin now leads with 38%, followed by Theresa May (16%) and North Korea leader Kim Jong Un (13%),

    Then realized it was part of the summary, so probably not a joke.
    The editors in Slashdot are really pushing on the (Russian) state actors hacking tale. Why would state actors act on Times' online poll? If they did, why would they put up these results?

    Times' poll was hacked by 4chan before. Kim Jong Un won in 2012 thanks to them, the magazine just discarded the results.

  8. And furthermore by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Assange doesn't have the funds and probably also not the influence.
    In any case, the whole "russians are hacking us" is mostly paranoia.

    "Mostly" is being generous.

    Assange took the unprecedented step to say specifically "it was not the Russians". He has stated that they never reveal their sources, so to go that far (eliminating Russia gives information about the actual source) he probably felt the fear-mongering was a prelude to a declaration of war, or at least minor hostility.

    (And to be fair, it sure looked, at the time, that America was ginning up for a fight with Russia.)

    And as for Clinton wanting to kill him, she specifically asked in a meeting "can't we just drone this guy", apparently was not joking, and as a result of the meeting the aides sent her a list of "legal and non-legal strategies" for dealing with assange.

    But then again, this could be fake news. Hillary doesn't remember joking about Assange, and Snopes has the "drone strike" claim listed as "unproven".

    (Note: The "legal and extra-legal" link is to a copy of the actual memo sent to Hillary.)

    1. Re:And furthermore by unixisc · · Score: 2

      If you think that CNN, PBS and NBC are believable, then there is no reason anyone can't do the same for either RT or FNC.

    2. Re:And furthermore by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here's the same story from USA Today. In case they're a state-sponsored mouthpiece for Russia or some other government here's the same story from Fortune. I'll leave it up to you to do a quick web search to find dozens of other sites reporting on the story. Even Fox has a version of the story and while they're a mouthpiece, it's not a state-sponsored Russian one.

      Of course you focus on the messenger far too much and ignore the more obvious. What guarantee do we have that Assange is telling the truth or that he is capable of knowing that for a fact. Let's suppose he knows that the leaks came from party X who he has reason to believe isn't involved with the Russian government. He could be legitimately mistaken and Russia could ultimately be the source of the leaks pushed through enough independent channels to hide their involvement. Or it came directly from Russia and he's covering up that fact for his own reasons.

      Unless you're also getting fed the kind of classified information that gives you a better idea of the shape of the world, all we can do is speculate. However, I think a better way to go about that is to look at what's happened since the election and what happens going forward. If we never see any additional email leaks related to Hillary or the DNC going forward it's pretty safe to assume that it was someone who really didn't want them to get elected and since that even has passed, they have no further interest. Even Trump who was heavily on the bandwagon to put Clinton in prison has done a bit of an about face on it. Whether he really ever wanted to or not is immaterial, it was just useful in helping him get votes. However, if over the next year we continue getting more and more leaks, it's probably safer to assume it isn't Russia (or if it really is that they'll try to act in a way as to make it appear less likely that it's them in which case we need more criteria that we don't post to the internet where they can read about it) and is just some hacker doing it because they can or to shake the ant farm a little bit for his or her own amusement.

      Of course there's a whole host of other sources that aren't Russia and it's usually safer to play the field unless you can't legitimately think of anyone else who might have been involved.

    3. Re:And furthermore by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Interesting

      yet oddly, that is exactly what people like you focused on. Not the story itself, but the source.

      I'd prefer it if you didn't put political leanings in my mouth. I didn't vote for Trump (or Clinton for that matter) but once again you attack the messenger rather than the message. Also, if you're going to complain about the other side doing something (rightly or not) you probably shouldn't also do that thing yourself.

      Also for what it's worth, you probably posted stories that confirm to your biases. It doesn't make you a bad person, actually it just makes you an ordinary person. You probably ignored factual stories that didn't support your preconceived notions or tried to find some reason to ignore them (like wrong messenger) so that your brain didn't have to consider information that conflicts with its existing choice.

      Pretty much everyone (my own self included) does this, but it's not really helpful. It's the same reason why there are some people who wouldn't be convinced of climate change if their dear lord Jeebus himself descended from heaven and told them it was all true. I suspect you'd agree with me that those people are acting rather silly, so wouldn't it be better if we tried not to act like them?

      If you get modded down its probably for going off-topic while essentially trying to rationalize why it's okay for you to attack the messenger, but not those other silly people. You even ended by creating a scenario in which you expect to use any perceived victimization as further proof that you're correct and everyone else is just out to get you. As far as that line of reasoning is concerned both a +5 and -1 moderation support your idea that you're correct. Seems like a rather flawed test does it not?

  9. Re:BTW by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

    Woah... Trump and Hitler mentioned in the same thread, and without being a Godwin. I looked back to see if that was true (it is), and as it turns out, Stalin was also person of the year. Twice, in fact: 1939 and 1942. Another historic note, from Wikipedia:

    Since the list began, every serving President of the United States has been a Person of the Year at least once with the exceptions of Calvin Coolidge, in office at time of the first issue

    Like or loathe him, it's hard to argue that Trump hasn't been one of the most influential people of the year.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  10. Audio is not enough for proof of life by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Assange/Wikileaks situation has been a bit weird for the past month, and no strong proof of life has been shown. Going with an audio interview is just going to fuel all the conspiracy nuts in /r/WhereIsAssange.

  11. Re: All Republicans and Trump backers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    College educated quite women were a tremendous help in getting Trump elected as well. While they were more likely to vote for Clinton, her advantage over Trump was only 6 points - 51 to 45.

  12. "Appearance" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you mean shitty audio and uncharacteristic commentary, then yeah, "he" made and "appearance".

    He has not been seen alive with any evidence since Oct 20th, period end of story.

  13. Was that on purpose? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2

    RT? That's what you're using as a source? The state-sponsored mouthpiece for Russia? The "news" organization who only says what Putin tells them?

    I'd take the Fox tabloid over RT any day. At least Fox puts out something truthful once in a while.

    I notice that you don't say the claim is wrong.

    Was that on purpose?

  14. Re:BTW by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't worry, we know. You're still pining for Hillary, hate to break it to you but she lost. Maybe you can pine on Obama a bit more and his peace prize, and all the wars he's started.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  15. Re:IMO, it should be Donald Trump by unixisc · · Score: 2

    If one thinks Brexit is bigger than Trump's election, the award should go to Nigel Farage

  16. Re:Time's "Person of the Year" is not chosen by po by quenda · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They'll give it to anyone unless he happens to be a Republican achiever that year.

    Achiever? I'm not sure you quite get what the "award" is for. Past "winners" include Hitler, Stalin, and even Henry Kissinger.

    From what I recall, President Bush never got it.

    HW got it, and W twice. You mean Jeb?

  17. Re:Who could be happier? by rectalfeeding · · Score: 2

    (at least, that's how he perceived it)

    How else is he supposed to take someone saying 'can't we just drone him'?

    Sarcastically? Ironically? Hyperbole? With a sense of humor?

    Few sociopaths understand humor.

    If the United States had held the moral high ground on assassination tactics outside of declared war, then yeah, maybe it could be taken as a joke. OTOH government agents have a differing duty when it comes to such important use of words. Even if Assange rationally accepted that it was 97% likely to be a joke, he might estimate that under that probability umbrella he might expected to be treated with all the respect that Manning has been given. In which case, same difference. I'd do to you what Hillary would do to Assange if she could if I could. Sweet Dreams.

  18. Re:Time's "Person of the Year" is not chosen by po by alvinrod · · Score: 2

    Bush wouldn't have done any of what he did were it not for Osama, which to me makes Osama a better candidate. Good or evil don't really come into it at all, just the influence the person had on the world.

    I'd probably argue that Trump would be the best candidate this year. If you look at the historical results, there's a pretty strong tendency for newly elected presidents to receive the award as everyone since H.W. Bush received the award the year of their election, and both George W. Bush and Obama received it on reelection as well.

    Actually, in looking at the list of winners on Wikipedia to verify that bit about the former presidents getting it on their election, they list the 2001 winner as Giuliani. While he's not quite as detestable as Osama, he apparently was the PotY for being mayor during 9/11. Really though it should have been bin Laden as you point out as it makes a hell of a lot more sense.

  19. Re:Who could be happier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And what did Manning do to earn any respect from the US military and civil agencies? He should have tried to introduce his fragile mental health to bolster his defense.

    And Assange has voluntarily put himself in prison for the last 4 years with no end in sight. If he ever enters a court room in Europe or the US he should definitely use his mental health as part of his defense. Assange and Manning are both the victims of their own stupidity. I guess this also applies to Snowden. Can anyone tell me why he did not go public until he was living in a country willing to shelter him? Nobody was chasing him before he went public? He is probably getting a little nervous about Russia turning him over to US as a good will gesture for the incoming government. Russia didn't give him asylum because they agreed with his actions they gave him asylum to annoy the US authorities. But now Putin really needs some of the sanctions imposed on his government and handing over Snowden may trigger some sanctions relief.

  20. Hmmm by LagFlag · · Score: 2

    Julian Assange Could Be Time's 'Person Of The Year', And Is Also Still Not Dead

    Perhaps Time know something we don't...

  21. Re:Time's "Person of the Year" is not chosen by po by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 2

    By achiever, I mean someone who achieved the most in a given year"

    The Time award is not for achievement but for the person or thing that has most influenced the news in a particular year. That, unquestionably, for this year is Donald Trump

    Or Putin - he did influence the news about Trump.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  22. Re:All Republicans and Trump backers by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    I know quite a few women (northern AZ) who voted for Donald of Orange, and overwhelmingly they were local business owners - the same demographic who have historically supported previous Republicans.

    As to the point of your Grauniad article, once Democrats allowed their own base minorities to be as viciously anti-white as they wanted, it nullified the whole racism/sexism issue for the rest of the voters. The thinking around here was, "They don't care? Then neither do we!"