It’s not Assange against Zuckerberg; it’s Wikileaks against The Law

Who wasn’t suprised when Time Magazine named Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg Person Of The Year? Or maybe the real surprise would have been to see WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange on the cover of the magazine even though he had earned 382,026, more than ten times the number of votes for Zuckerberg.

Since Time admitted that their editors reserve the right to disagree with user votes, angry Time readers asked why they wasted their time voting online.
Should we really blame Time? If they had chosen Assange, I would have been impressed by their guts. By choosing Zuckerberg however, the editors have just proved to be like any other company; they play safe. But how safe is Facebook?

The difference between Julian Assange and Mark Zuckerberg

WikiLeaks leaks government’s classified documents hoping to educate world citizens while Facebook may well be leaking private information of its users to advertizing companies. Which of these two revolutionaries causes us less harm?

Aonther major difference would be the nature itself of these two websites. Facebook is in line with the advent of the participatory web, which is sometimes a good way to cultivate self-centredness among all the little narcissistic Internet users who believe they are a great contribution to the community.

In contrast, WikiLeaks that started has a wiki (a website allowing user comments and edits) is now a higly securised website where updates need to be approved by Julian Assange. If Assange hasn’t had the time to investigate on a specific matter, a content can’t be published by just a regular John Doe. Therefore, WikiLeaks appears to be more serious, less collective but further engaged than Facebook. If there were any egos to be flattered, it would be Assange’s only.

The Time against Time
The European newspaper Le Temps (which ironically means The Time) was a tiny little bit sarcastic concerning the Time Magazine choice for Facebook owner. Here’s an excerpt from the article untitled « Zuckerberg, plus consensuel qu’Assange » (Zuckerberg, more consensual than Assange) :

The personality of Mark Zuckerberg has no doubt appeared to be more rallying to the magazine’s jury (Time magazine). Through this personality, he celebates innovation and the optimism of a world full of potential friends (they may be superficial but who cares). As for Julian Assange, he is moving into the dark twists and turns of conspiracy.

Unlawful or just Trouble of the Year?

Time Magazine could argue that unlike Assange, Zuckerberg hasn’t been accused of sexual misconduct. He is not the one that could soon be facing espionage charges either. WikiLeaks’ owner is in trouble with the law. Even if most newspapers insinuate that he is the victim of a conspiracy, it’s not enough to polish his reputation.

Assange had never hit so hard when about two weeks ago, he published a quarter of a million of U.S. classified documents on WikiLeaks, the website he created. By unveiling a secret list ¹ of international critical infrastructure and industrial sites that the U.S. protects from terrorists attacks, Assange contributed in what could be the most damaging diplomatic fiasco in modern US history².

Obama and his secretary of State weren’t the only ones to not be amused. Even a former aide of Canadian Prime Minister declared during an interview that ³ WikiLeaks’ founder “should be assassinated”, and that he “wouldn’t be unhappy” if he were to disappear.

But Assange said he was here to stay. Upon his release (following the above-mentioned accusations), Julian Assange declared he was getting back to work, a work that involves collecting classified documents, sorting them out, investigating their integrity and authenticity and then publishing them on WikiLeaks.
While I understand that Time Magazine was afraid of making a political statement by choosing Assange, I don’t think they did that much better by choosing Mark Zuckerberg.

The only reason why I’m still on Facebook is because I realized that closing my account won’t change the fact that anything I may have done or said on Facebook was saved and probably shared without me knowing it. Even if I deleted my account today, I wouldn’t be able to get back all the information third parties have already gathered from me.
We are just lucky that Assange doesn’t care about the life of regular and insignficant people like me. Otherwise, my life would have already been in the news.

Annotations:

1. Reuters , WikiLeaks lists sites U.S. says vital to interests
2. The Telegraph expands on diplomatic damages, The Obama Administration owes Britain an apology over the WikiLeaks débacle
3. Details on CBC.ca interview, Flanagan comments probed by Calgary police
Special note:
The Time cover featuring Paul Assange as the « Trouble of the Year » is fictive. It was created by hibiscus jaune on Photoshop for the purpose of this article; it does not represent a real Time Magazine issue.