If you read any of the headlines about Time's choice of Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg as Person Of The Year, you would think there were only two contenders. Which is a half-truth. People seem to be confused about the magazine's choice of Zuckerberg over WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who won the popular vote and really is more of a 2010 phenomenon. Is Time ignoring the voice of the people in favor of a less controversial character, or are they just convinced it's still 2007?

The Zuckerberg writeup includes everything from Virginia Woolfe quotes to that study about how the human brain can only keep track of 150 "friends," ending with the typical praise about Facebook changing the way we live and communicate. But skeptics like the Observer cry that Assange deserves the award for "his ability to reawaken us to the horrors of war, to rattle those long entrenched in the seats power and to truly test the limits of free speech and freedom of information."

Time tries to defend themselves, writing, "Zuckerberg enables individuals to voluntarily share information with the idea of empowering them. Assange sees the world as filled with real and imagined enemies; Zuckerberg sees the world as filled with potential friends." But the two have one thing in common, both men are eager to share your personal information (though Zuckerberg has an easier time because your drunken photos are just a click away). Zuckerberg beat out other finalists like Glenn Beck, the Tea Party, the Chilean miners, the Double Rainbow guy, and Lady Gaga. Where's the outrage over her snub?! Are her little monsters really satisfied with just a few lousy wax figures?