Besides PR campaigns, I wonder if another source of hostility to Google+ is a normal human reaction to the fact that social networking, as we currently know it,

Besides PR campaigns, I wonder if another source of hostility to Google+ is a normal human reaction to the fact that social networking, as we currently know it, is a natural monopoly. A lot of people are in the situation where they're going to have to be on Facebook no matter what (hello lock-in), and they'd really rather not have to be on Google+ at the same time. It'd be all the annoying parts of social networking doubled, plus the hassle of maintaining two copies of a lot of information, with no significant advantages. I think a lot of people who disparage Google+ would have no major objection if it could quickly take over from Facebook and become the new monopoly. However, by this point it seems unlikely, barring a major event. A world where social networking services could interoperate, sort of like how we have numerous telephone companies but one global namespace of phone numbers, would be interesting.