I feel (and I believe this to be the author's sentiment as well) that Google Plus does not innovate enough on any existing products to grant it significant relevance.
Google dominated because it did search much better than it's competitors and got people the search results they were looking for.
Google+ does nothing for me that I cannot get with Facebook.
Well, it seems to me that the author makes some kind of moral argument out of the whole thing in a David vs. Goliath kind of way. Certainly both are (huge) corporations but I still trust Google more. They still seem to have a sane leadership which I'm not so sure about with Facebook. Maybe I just don't like Zuckerberg ... He just is not the kind of underdog that I would like to succeed. (Edit: Neither is Google, but the author makes it look like Facebook should be support in a way.)
I merely make a comparison between the early days, intentions and motives of both Google+ and Facebook, how they're different and why I think that difference is important.
Google dominated because it did search much better than it's competitors and got people the search results they were looking for.
Google+ does nothing for me that I cannot get with Facebook.