Subscribe to this feed via RSSG+ is useful, but I think it’s useful for reasons that don’t make it an immediate threat to Facebook. In my opinion, their operating purposes are slightly different and I actually believe they can coexist. If anything G+ only resembles Facebook aesthetically with “some” improved privacy settings, but to me operationally it appears to be more “Twitter” like.
- On Twitter and G+ you can be followed but this action does not have to be mutual and you can choose to not return the gesture. Also like Twitter you choose who to follow but unlike Twitter you can compartmentalize those you are following by assigning them to a domain of relationship relevance.
- Twitter operates within a model where a user is “talking at you”. You broadcast information and followers see it, they can choose to respond to it but this dialogue is limited (character limits) and it can easily get lost in the thread (twitter threads move tweets further down the page as more come in).
- G+ on the other hand operates within a model where a user is “talking with you”. You broadcast information and followers see it, they can choose to respond, this dialogue is not limited, and although it can still be lost in the thread the response is within a thread that is relevant to the topic.
If you take away the Facebook “likeness”, to me (as of now at least) G+ seems to be more of a threat to how Twitter operates. Even with this though, the convenience that Twitter provides is authentic and adds value to its service, which is why I don’t see its user base being effected too much. I actually believe all three services can coexist.
