Google+ launched in 2011 with every advantage a product could have: hundreds of millions in funding, the world's best engineers, integration with the most popular search engine on earth, and the full institutional weight of one of the most powerful companies in history. It was going to be the Facebook killer. It killed nothing. It died in 2019, mostly unmourned.
Google+ was a perfectly functional social network that nobody wanted. It did everything Facebook did, but none of your friends were on it. A social network without your social network is just a website. Google tried to force adoption by integrating Google+ with YouTube comments, Gmail, and search results. This didn't make people love Google+. It made people resent Google for making them create a Google+ account to comment on a cat video.
Every social network faces a chicken-and-egg problem: people join because their friends are there, but their friends aren't there because they haven't joined. Google+ never solved this. The early adopters were tech enthusiasts who posted about privacy and open source. The mainstream users never arrived. It was like throwing a party where only the DJ's friends showed up, and they all wanted to talk about audio equipment.
You cannot buy a community. You cannot engineer social behavior. You cannot make people care about your product by forcing it into their existing workflows. Google+ had better features than Facebook in several ways — the Circles concept for organizing contacts was genuinely clever — but features don't matter if the people you want to share things with aren't there to see them. Being technically superior is meaningless if the inferior product has everyone you know. See also: every format war in history.