No, really. When they said "you," they actually meant me.
Alright, not really. I don't want to take up too much space commenting on this, so let me be short: Time's choice for person of the year (i.e. the generic "you") was stupid. And not because "you" didn't deserve it, but because they (Time) praised "you" for making possible a media revolution that makes both Time magazine and their person of the year nomination totally antiquated. Which isn't to say that time shouldn't have their person of the year; rather I'm just suggesting they keep it to a person or group of clearly identified persons, rather than the "we're hip, no really" ambiguity of a pronoun.
Person of the year makes sense when media covers important people, people who dominate the news, who make big decisions, etc. In the past, when they've identified groups, they've done so because of the way those groups were able to present themselves to the mainstream media and to influence decisions. The new "you" user isn't an enhancement or an addition; it's a entirely different way of thinking and practicing mediation and news, and so "person of the year" is simply an inadequate concept with which to address it.