The Register article complains solely because a search for "second superpower" now links primarily to an article on a Harvard weblog about something increasingly similar to the term they preferred ("second superpower" being those global antiwar protestors).

What does this mean? Google's relevance works -- I saw links to the Harvard article on almost every major weblog I read--it's a popular concept, and google reflects that.

Google is not an encyclopedia, nor is it a movement organizer. Google categorizes information based on some perceived level of web popularity. I think its doing its job.