Here's a blog post that asks a fundamental question:



http://ypulse.com/archives/2007/09/think_mtv_can_y.php



Think MTV: Can You Have Too Many Sites Doing 'Good'?

I read the news yesterday that MTV's first implementation of Flux would be a social network built around its pro-social efforts (Think MTV) with a mixed reaction. There are already a couple of amazing sites connecting youth activists in the non-profit space like YouthNoise , Do Something
and TakingITGlobal . Part of me wanted MTV to just sponsor Think MTV sections on all of these sites (and they still can) vs. launch yet another social network young people have to build a presence on. I also wonder if duplicating efforts works against the spirit of what activists are trying to achieve. Does having so many different communities around similar causes actually work against the cause itself?

I've been thinking about this in the education space as well. Google has a
program for educators. Yahoo! is launching its site for teachers and Microsoft does its thing in the ed space as well. I can't help wondering what the impact of a powerful singular initiative led by all of the tech giants together would be on getting teachers up to speed vs. each company launching its own specific program and trying to get teachers on board.

This is a challenge when commercial entities try to do "good." They want their brand attached to it, their products to be used in the process and their domains to get the traffic and users. So we end up with lots of duplicate efforts vs. collaboration. Maybe I should just be glad they're doing good at all and say "the more the merrier" (and to a large degree I am. I would rather have them doing something than nothing). What do you think?