This article seems to boil down to the idea that because plus isn't a 1:1 copy of the mental model and concepts of facebook and twitter, it has to be a failure.

This article seems to boil down to the idea that because plus isn't a 1:1 copy of the mental model and concepts of facebook and twitter, it has to be a failure. It builds on a bad assumption right out the gate, that automatically reposting trash you happen to perform a lightweight operation on is what it means to be "social" online. That only happens because facebook is pandering to marketers. I wish I still had the email where facebook described to marketers the change from "Become a fan" to "like". The change was to make it so that the action that got people to spam their friends became more lightweight. The author compares it to tweeting. Really? Last I knew on the twitter you slammed a link into the text field, just like people do on plus when they actually want to share the link. Ultimately, a lower number of bullshit reposted from MSNBC.com showing up in my stream than my feed is a WIN for me.