According to Time, The World's Most Influential Person Is...
You don't know who moot is? Moot is the red pill.
From the issue:
It should be obvious that the poll was rigged: moot got his followers to vote him up. Even if that isn't obvious, a search on "Time influential people" gives up half a dozen articles explaining precisely how the poll was rigged.
Why would Time leave the poll up-- let alone publish it in the print edition long after it is known the poll was rigged?
Does this mean they know, or don't know, the poll was rigged?I.
If this is an online poll, can one actually argue that the results are invalid? It's based on votes, and more people voted for moot. More people were influenced by moot enough to vote for him. Right?
This is just like a medical study, which is why so many people misinterpret medical studies. The poll does not measure who is influential. It measures who people believe is influential. So did the poll accurately measure what it was supposed to? Yes. So does it matter that you don't like the results?
II.
But it wasn't so simple as moot running the best campaign. moot and his friends hacked the voting so that people could vote multiple times (for moot). So no, it wasn't a valid poll.
So back to question one: if it isn't valid, why does Time still decide to publish it? Or did they really not know?
III.
Ok, let's everybody settle down. Time published it because it knows readers will be smart enough to ignore moot at #1, and just look through the rest of the poll. Right?
Time knows Americans are smart. No, no, no, not the Americans more than 200 miles inwards from the coasts-- they're all idiots, of course. I'm talking about the real Americans, the urban post-nationalist Americans who know we are eventually going to have a one world government, like on Star Trek, if we can just get global warming under control. They know Rick Warren isn't more influential than Angela Merkel, obviously. The point is to use the poll to discuss what's wrong with the landlocked Americans that they think Rick Warren is more influential than Angela Merkel. And what does that say for our (read: not their) society?
The debate that will ensue will confirm for them that they are deeply interested in the world, that they are intelligent, that they have valuable and valid opinions. That they know better.
Time published the poll precisely so we could look down on it, "that's who those idiots picked as most influential?"
IV.
All this would be would be fine for Time if it was just the #1 spot that was rigged, not the entire poll:
"Marblecake Also The Game." Don't worry about what it means. Just realize 4chan's people voted simply to make it spell out "marble cake also the game." In other words, Rick Warren is more influential than Angela Merkel because they needed an R before they needed an A.
V.
So the question stands: does Time not know, or not care? Not know would be awesome, and by awesome I mean absolutely terrifying, that a major international news magazine with their own journalists would not be aware of... the internet...
Not care would be amazing, and by amazing I mean (again) absolutely terrifying-- that a major magazine would be so contemptuous of its readers that it would not cancel the poll, or at least explain what happened. Because the poll, as it stands now, is now who 4chan-- not anyone else-- thinks is influential.
But they don't care. Not at all. They still might not actually know, either-- but they clearly do not care. They do not care because the poll actually isn't about who people think is influential; the poll is actually a tool for Time to tell you who is influential and who isn't. They already know who is influential and who is not. They decide, they have already decided. Because they are smarter than you. They will tell you who is influential and who is not; they will tell you what is good and what is not; and they will not tell you anything that you don't need to know, e.g. reality.
It doesn't matter if the poll was hacked or not, all that matters is that any 100 names appear in some order so that Time can then say, "see? This poll is wrong, whatever it says. Here's what's right."
That's why none of the pictures that lead this story
actually are of moot. Or anyone in the poll, for that matter.
Digg | 
del.icio.us | 
StumbleUpon | 
Reddit | 
Yahoo! | 
My favourites
Recommend to a Friend
May 4, 2009 3:22 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"the poll is actually a tool for Time to tell you who is influential and who isn't."
The poll is a tool for creating a fluff piece to sell magazines in a frantic attempt to rescue print media.
Got to say I didn't expect to see moot's name up there when I read the article title.
It's also saying that enough folks at /b/ cared about the results to manipulate the votes. I'm sure if Obama had twittered asking for votes that he could have given moot some competition. But he's hopefully dealing with more important things than an online poll. At least until it gets closer to reelection time.
Online polls don't mean much anyways it's all bias from self-selection. Said so in in high school stats book. :P
May 4, 2009 3:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Apparently, the security on that poll was absolutely horrible, by analysis as well as result. Jeff Atwood, a talkative blogger on the subject of software development and web security had some interesting words to say on the topic:
May 4, 2009 4:23 PM | Posted by : | Reply
if this must be analyzed (it does), this is a testament to the victims of the american 'educated for no reason' class. institutions of power? how well organized are they exactly. lets blind them with science.
May 4, 2009 4:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's perfectly clear that this poll was never meant to be definitive or actually mean anything to the magazine or anyone, but if anyone cares, a bit of investigation will reveal an organized and extremely sophisticated operation was required to make this happen. Weird that the focus of the article was that it happened because nobody cared about the poll in the first place rather than the precision that these guys were able to achieve in fixing the results.
May 4, 2009 7:36 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Obviously moot must be influential - he got himself mentioned in the TIME poll. To suggest this doesn't matter is to suggest the TIME poll itself doesn't matter, maybe even that TIME isn't on an influential par with the people it names, and that its imprimatur is meaningless. And that is what is unthinkable. So let's acknowledge moot as influential, and therefore thank him for his most gracious acknowledgment of the importance of the TIME poll.
May 4, 2009 8:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I've long questioned the sanity of this blogger doc, not really knowing how someone who can see through the system can be so paranoid and (ironically) narcissistic himself. Now I know my answer.
Go back to /b/, doc.
May 4, 2009 11:50 PM | Posted by : | Reply
to be fair, moot didn't actually ask the 4channers to do it for him, they did it of their own volition (as far as I know). It's the kind of thing they do, they wouldn't wait for/need his permission.
May 5, 2009 5:31 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What he said. If Moot actually knew they ("they" would be individuals who frequent 4chan) were rigging the poll, he'd have likely told them to stop. They are not "Moots people" and most would probably resent the notion, "we are not your personal army" is a widespread meme on 4chan.
They rigged the poll not because they were told to, or because they think Moot is actually influential, but partly for laughs and partly to show how flawed the concept of online polls is.
May 5, 2009 11:13 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"So the question stands: does Time not know, or not care?"
You say it like it is some conspiracy against the public, but really they are just giving people what they want. Oh sure, people pretend it is informative, but that is just part of the game.
Ever watched/read the news not actually to be informed, but rather to have something to say about the current hot topics so you don't feel/look ignorent when others bring them up? That is The Game (not the one you just lost).
Of course people don't just live the lie, they believe it too. Yet that is still intentional, and part of the point of doing it. It doesn't matter if Time doesn't know and/or care because it isn't their job. Their job is to provide a certain sort of entertainment.
It is not terrifying, it just is. This is the way it is supposed to be. People generally don't go around admitting that, but that too is just part of the game.
May 5, 2009 3:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I see this more as simple laziness and disorganization. The poll idea probably came up at a meeting, which most of the people forgot about within a few hours. The web guys set it up, and it then became their domain. They then switched focus to the thousand other things they do. The automated poll did its thing, and the results came in. Someone from the magazine called over to IT for the results, and they were delivered without evaluation. At no point did anyone shepard or manage the poll, it was simply passed around. Without a definitive manager, no one felt the responsibility to question the results. It was just something passing through.
Stupidity, as opposed to shrewd execution, is usually my suspicion in such events.
May 5, 2009 3:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It is not terrifying, it just is. This is the way it is supposed to be. People generally don't go around admitting that, but that too is just part of the game.
I think you're on to something here. Barring any events that might visibly impact one's life, news is whatever we choose to discuss, and in order to serve that role it has to be broad and accessible. If you want economic news, read the Economist. If you want science news, try SciAm. If you just want to know what most people are talking about, read Time or watch CNN.
As you've said, people's main priority is keeping up and fitting in. As long as they're all on the same page, it doesn't matter what's written on it. In a group of friends, its usually more engaging to know about a funny news story than a serious piece no one else has read. Talking about that just makes them think you're trying to showboat, and they don't listen, anyway.
And yes, it's not all that terrifying, it's just life. It's how humans do things, and it isn't going to change. At best, it will only appear to change when such change is popular.
September 14, 2009 10:33 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Nice post
replica watches for 116$.top rank quality,free shipping world wide,free gift watches.
http://www.buyreplicawatch.com
September 29, 2009 3:06 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Smiles help you forget your sadness. Life is a chi flat iron long road. Why not cover it with smiles?
Comments