UnLtdWorld has some new features, and I have a suggestion

Mike Butcher

Mike Butcher is the European Editor for TechCrunch. A former grunge rock drummer, he became a long time journalist, and has since written for UK national newspapers and magazines including The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The New Statesman. Mike is also a co-founder and shareholder of TechHub, a co-working space/service/community with several locations... → Learn More

Sunday, May 25th, 2008

UnLtdWorld, the niche social network aimed at social entrepreneurs, is adding a few new features. Among them, the Research Lab feature (which maps social entrepreneurship) now enables members to visualise a breakdown of all statistical data around a specific location and relevant to their personal network. The site will also be releasing a series of APIs to generate mashups with the data.

UnLtdWorld is fresh from being one of three startups singled out as winners at Startup2.eu. It’s supported by UnLtd — the Foundation for Social Entrepreneurs – and was designed and developed by Curverider on their Elgg platform.

But there is one thing I think UnLtdWorld keeps missing in its pitch, and it’s something completely in contrast to their – very worthy – aims. It’s this: if you are going to enable people in socially deprived parts of world to improve the lot of their fellow man, there is one sector that ought to be very interested in either acquiring or taking a stake in this site: property developers.

Think about it. Say you managed to enable some selfless youth worker in London’s East End to get local kids to leave knife-weilding gangs and get back to school? What happens next? The area’s reputation improves and, at some point, property values rise.

Clearly I am going to Hell for thinking a platform for worthy causes could be owned by rapacious property developers. Oh well.

  • http://blog.dooyt.com Marcin Grodzicki

    It’s and old economical theory: private property and selfishness do more good than altruistic behavior. Nothing wrong with that – as long as the outcome is positive for more than one person.

  • Ted

    @ Marcin. The expected outcome of all voluntary exchanges (which itself assumes private property) is necessarily positive for all participants, otherwise the transaction would not be agreed to in the first place. The “people not profits” slogan is completely wrongheaded.

  • http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com steve ballmer

    If it does not make money, it is probablly bad! That’s my philosophy.

blog comments powered by Disqus