My Photo

About Beth Kanter

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Beth's Blog: Channels, Screencasts, and Videos

Awards, Nominations, and Board Memberships

May 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          


Site Tracking

  • This is my Google PageRankā„¢ - SmE Rank free service Powered by Scriptme

« Target Facebook Challenge: Ten Large Charities Compete for Votes To Divide the $3 Million Pot | Main | Nedspace Co-Working Space in Portland, Oregon will send three Cambodians to college if .... »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I agree. The organization selected for the donations plays a huge part in the 'generosity' of the donors. I bet the Boston Symphony Orchestra might do great with LinkedIn donors but lousy on Facebook. Etc.

Geoff Livingston

I think it really depends on the cause. If the cause has a natural community in one network or another it's self explanatory. It may also come down to which medium is best at supporting social actions. Which one makes it easier? Twitter is easy to retweet, but harder to organize for the long-term.

Lindy Dreyer

I agree with you, Rhea, and Geoff that it depends on the cause and how well they are using the space to connect to their online community. But all things being equal on that front, I'd say there is a difference between the social networks. It's about stickiness, and how easily users can spend their social capital.

Where the question "Which Social Network User Base Is More Altruistic?" puts a value judgment on the users of the social network, perhaps the right question is "Which Social Network Best Energizes Altruistic Users." From my experience, FB and Twitter make it much easier to create a sticky message than other social networks. Just sayin'.

Karen Maunu LWB

Our Facebook supporters are amazing! In one week, they seeded our Unity Fund, money to be used to help heal poor rural children in China. We currently have almost 13,000 followers. We also are using Twitter and Linked In, but are finding it easier to share our stories and message on Facebook.


Non of these networks have the main purpose of being altruistic. These social networks are companies that have started important new way of using internet. These social networks have started small but have become financially indepent a huge success, and there is nothing wrong with it.

To put is one step futher, how more financially stable and how bigger their success, the more the social network can be and advantage for fundraising activities for social projects and in this way become altruistic.

Nevertheless these social network are not mainly focusing on fundraising specially, whereas the 1%club, ammando and pifworld are social networks which main focus is altruism.

For example check out: and let me know your feedback!

The comments to this entry are closed.