To clarify my argument and where my starting point lies: I hate and I do mean hate, Facebook. I am not on it anymore and I don't plan to go back to it any time soon. Here is why: http://www.noisepollution.nl/?p=1055. I just do not trust the ideas that are lurking in the shadows of the Facebook leadership.
So why does the headline say that it is a good choice? Because whichever way you look at it, Zuckerberg has made an impact on our world that is undeniable. Who else managed to get 500 million people hooked on a website in only a few years? Who else has had a film made about his life before he is even 30 years old? Who else has changed the way we interact so profoundly?
Whether Mark Zuckerberg did this all by himself or not is beside the point: the history books will say he did. Whether he achieved all this through honest hard graft or by bamboozling others out of million dollar ideas is also not relevant because, again, the history books will record his name as the person who changed our world.
It also does not matter whether Facebook survives another year or whether it will do a MySpace, the stage is set and there is no going back. Facebook now represents many billions of dollars of revenue for too many companies (like Zynga) to not have set a precedent. Facebook, by any other name will keep smelling just as sweet.
So yes, I agree with Time that Mark Zuckerberg should be named person of the year. Mind you, in 1938 Hitler was person of the year so it is a questionable honour and one that should be treated with circumspection by those that keep their eyes open...