Well, to the extent that Google+ is a wannabe Facebook, it can't be any better, right?
Without getting into an argument of which is worse, I think ultimately Facebook is more dangerous. Facebook has tremendous network effects and lock-down effects. I can switch from Google to DDG easily, but as long as my family in Bangladesh uses Facebook to post pictures of my nieces and nephews, my ability to switch away from Facebook is limited.
And I don't personally care--I'm not a private person and anything you want to know about me is probably on the internet. But I'm making an informed decision (within the constraints of the fact that Google and Facebook don't disclose exactly how they use your information, but I assume the worst). In my experience, most people who use Google and Facebook aren't.
Don't get me wrong. I think this stuff is useful. But there needs to be more transparency and more restraint than there is. A ban on collecting data on minors would be a start.
You know advertisers collect data about what you watch on TV? Certain channels cater to certain type of people so ad buyers would buy ads based on demographics of a certain show (for example, Shark Tank has one of the highest avg income audiences in the country, so it would make sense for Mercedes to advertise when the show airs) .
People seem to forget that it was the original targeted advertising. You subliminally got targeted by demographic specific ads based on the type of shows you were interested in. It just so happens that the way Google and Facebook do it is way more high tech.
The data goes into their platform, they dont' sell it. I think maintaining a healthy paranoia is good and we should pressure the companies to be better with our data. However, as long as they maintain security as a strong value, I think it'll be ok. At least I myself personally don't mind them holding my data as long as it is secure and private to me.
