Interesting thought, we can think about this as an extension of group polarization theory in psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_polarization). In group polarization, belonging to a group with specific views will actually expand any individual member's views in that direction; being in a group of pro-YC people will make me think even more fondly of YC.
So we end up more influenced by the people (and really, searches) that we're surrounded by. When Facebook introduced their new chat window, with the "top friends" (who you talk to and interact with most) at the top, I actually thought that was group polarization in the way - you'll talk more to the people you talk to, and less to the people we don't. I think Google is a more interesting example because we're dealing with knowledge, and not just interactions.
Don't think it'll wind up to be discriminatory, because we can't pinpoint and compare one search to another. From a business side, group polarization is the basis behind all ads - let's show you things we think you'll like, and if you do like them, then you'll click, and start liking them even more. So Google benefits from group polarization, and it's essentially another form of targeted knowledge/advertising for the end user.
Yes, this is exactly what I mean. But this is going even further, when the search depends on the physical location, not only on my friends, it could really impact how a young person can find things online, and how their interests could be slightly pushed towards their local/social area.
The point being, I don't even think it's better targeting, because it doesn't really focus on the user but on where the user is, while one of the good things about the Internet was that whatever I liked, I could have had the same chances of finding what I wanted no matter where I was. Now the where changes things. For some topics it's for the good, for others I believe it's not.
So we end up more influenced by the people (and really, searches) that we're surrounded by. When Facebook introduced their new chat window, with the "top friends" (who you talk to and interact with most) at the top, I actually thought that was group polarization in the way - you'll talk more to the people you talk to, and less to the people we don't. I think Google is a more interesting example because we're dealing with knowledge, and not just interactions.
Don't think it'll wind up to be discriminatory, because we can't pinpoint and compare one search to another. From a business side, group polarization is the basis behind all ads - let's show you things we think you'll like, and if you do like them, then you'll click, and start liking them even more. So Google benefits from group polarization, and it's essentially another form of targeted knowledge/advertising for the end user.