Consider this: the flagship publication of one of the most powerful media conglomerates in the world declares that flagship publications and powerful media conglomerates no longer choose where to hoist flags or exercise power.

That’s exactly what happened last week when Time Magazine declared its Person of the Year to be you, me, and everyone who contributes content to new media aggregators like MySpace, Amazon, Facebook, YouTube, Ebay, Flickr, blogs and Google.

"It’s about the many wrestling power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the ways the world changes," Lev Grossman breathlessly writes in Time.

Story continues below ↓

"And for seizing the reins of the global media," Grossman says, "for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game, Time’s Person of the Year for 2006 is you."

Well, thank you, Time, for hyping me, overvaluing me, using me to sell my image back to me, profiling me, flattering me, and failing to pay me. As soon as I saw myself on my local newsstand, I had to buy a copy of Time.

Notice that Time framed the Person of the Year as "you." That should sound familiar. Almost every major marketing campaign these days is about empowering "you."

"You" have freedom of choice. "You" can let yourself be profiled so that "you" only receive solicitations from companies that interest "you." "You" could customize "your" mobile phone with the "Hollaback Girl" ringtone, but "you" would not because that’s so 2004. So you choose Ne-Yo’s "Sexy Love" instead. "You" go to the Nike Store to get your own design of shoes. Because "you" roll like that. After all, "you" are an "Army of One."

But to quote the Who, "Who are You?" Are you the sum of your consumer preferences and MySpace personae? What is your contribution worth? It’s worth money to someone, if only as part of a whole.

We have simply let a handful of new corporations aggregate and exercise their own will on us. And we have perfected online dating.

Google, for instance, only makes money because it harvests, copies, aggregates, and ranks billions of Web contributions by millions of authors who unknowingly grant Google the right to capitalize, or "free ride," on their work. Who are you to Google? To Amazon? Do "you" really deserve an award for allowing yourself to be rendered so flatly and cravenly? Do you deserve an award because media mogul Rupert Murdoch can make money capturing your creativity via his new toy, MySpace?

The important movement online is not about "you." It’s about "us." It’s about our profound need to connect and share. It’s about our remarkable ability to create among circles — each person contributing a little bit to a poem, a song, a quilt, or a conversation.

So it’s not about your reviews on Amazon. It’s about how we as a community of Web users choose to exercise our collective wills and forge collective consciousnesses. So far, we have declined to do so. We have not harnessed this communicative power to force the rich and powerful to stop polluting our air and water or to stop the spread of AIDS or malaria. We have not brought down any tyrants. We have simply let a handful of new corporations aggregate and exercise their own will on us. And we have perfected online dating.

But there are signs of real profound triumphs of "We." Wikipedia is the best example. Blogs are another. Communities — both local and global — have generated amazing collections of content and communication in recent years. They have truly challenged the status-quo in ways that Time hypes so well.