Reasonable! However, Google is made up of people who are actively choosing to comply with nonsense. Perhaps it is in fact better to hold people to a standard of behavior than to pretend those people are somehow exempt from sanity or morality simply because they work for a company. Today the nonsense is silly, perhaps tomorrow it is less silly.
I do not object to renaming the Gulf of America because I do not live in it, but there are a lot of silly things the administration could decide Google needs to do that could be very bad for me and others.
I completely agree with the concern. But it seems to me that promoting a standard of behavior requiring people to object to silly things that don't matter makes it more likely, not less, that they'll end up complying with the things that do matter. "I'm not living up to this standard anyway, and I have what I think are good reasons for that, so is it really the right standard?"
The "Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)" label doesn't follow the previous standard of giving just one name to a map feature. For example, just "Gulf of America" in the USA and "Gulf of Mexico" elsewhere. After all, Maps doesn't use "English Channel (La Manche)" does it?
That's not the previous standard. Here's a counter-example: zoom to Falkland Islands as an English-language user, and you'll likely see "Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)" as the name. (Unless you're in the UK or Argentina, I suspect.)
The English Channel example isn't really relevant. Those are just two names in different languages. France is not insisting that La Manche is the official name of the English Channel in all languages.
Lots of locations have completely unrelated names in different languages. For example Germany is something like Dutch Land in most Germanic languages and Alemania in most Latin languages.
This is curious that people are behaving like this, but I don't see it as "tech related" issue, Google (and any company) need to comply with whatever thing their country decides.
Objectively speaking, the reviews are not related to the geographical point.
> Do not obey in advance. Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.
But if you wanna make business in a certain country it is kinda expected and their normal behavior.
Mind here, this is not just google. Hence why all big tech overnight switched from "woke" to "anti woke" despite this having zero impact on their products, it is just sinaligning to the new chief.
And this behavior happens in every country they operate as well, of course since they are American companies (with stocks in the American market) this is much more pronounced in the US.
"Google gives government back-door to all user data so that government can find dissidents"
"Google needs to comply with whatever their country decides"
If companies can have political opinions, and influence the government directly, then they can be held to a moral standard, as can the individuals responsible for making decisions and taking actions for the company.
That's the thing, I think it is terrible, but companies are extensions of the government. They do those things so they can keep getting the sweet sweet tax deals and government contracts.
I am aware there's no law, but I think most replies missed this point. It's not about there being a law, but what is implied if they don't get in line.
Just like how all big techs are "anti woke" now whatever that means.
Does it have to immediately comply? I see no reason, ie if Xi decided to rename Uighur-majority places into say Han-style names, or same for Tibet. Google is not official government branch, I see no reason to be forced immediately to act upon such decisions.
What I see is desperate attempt of all those previously-admired big CEOs to try to please emotional and vengeful head of current administration however they can, including official bribes.
Maybe I have incorrect viewing lens or logic, but it certainly looks from outside that way.
I don't think Xinjiang or Tibet are helpful analogies. India recently changed a city's name from Allahabad to Prayagraj; should Google have carefully analyzed the circumstances behind this name change and rejected it if they feel the process was too silly or too Hindutva?
Google doesn’t operate in China but if they did, they would have to comply with Chinese law. For example, iPhones in China don’t have a Taiwanese flag emoji.
>This is curious that people are behaving like this, but I don't see it as "tech related" issue, Google (and any company) need to comply with whatever thing their country decides.
They also pushed the update outside Trumpland,
>The name would remain unchanged in Mexico and the rest of the world would see "Gulf of America" added next to its current name in brackets, Google added.
>The name would remain unchanged in Mexico and the rest of the world would see "Gulf of America" added next to its current name in brackets, Google added.
No law, although my original comment could be interpreted as what the law says, I meant what the acting government decides so they can "show good will" and make things easier when negotiating tax breaks and government contracts.
If there was a law then there would be no discussion, companies definitely can't break laws.
But this is about "falling in line" to get in the good sides of the current administration in this particular country.
As it always has been in any place. Check whatever Google/Meta/X/others do in several different countries on things that are not law, but it is implied that they should do whatever they are asked or else.
I was thinking about the naming saga, and my conclusion was that the Gulf of America is actually less American centric. Think about how Americans refer to the southern border as the Mexican border, while the Mexicans refer to it as the American border. As an American, when I hear the Gulf of Mexico, I know that it is south of America. When I hear Gulf of America, I just know it is somewhere around America.
Sadly typical for Google. They have a long history of removing opposing voices instead of listening. Notable examples are YouTube removing dislikes, forcing old videos into shorts, and allowing disabling of comments. Also Google play removing review bombs when developers release junky updates that break the app.
It's a borderline parasocial relationship people have thinking that such a megacorp gives 2 hoots about such a captive audience.
Inserting standard Google quote here: If you're not paying for a product, you are the product. Google is taking care of their actual customers (btw. that includes US Government): Businesses who pay to have an entry on Google Maps, youtubers who bring in ad revenue, app developers who drive google play revenue, etc.
Yep. So considering I've never bought anything from Google directly (even my current phone, a pixel, was free from my carrier), they have no reason to care about my disgruntlement. Not like there's a Maps Pro or anything.
When the country Turkey wanted to be renamed something that I can't even type with a Latin keyboard, people seemed to go along with it. Now, largely the same people who were fine with Turkey's rename have issues with this.
Bit weird to rename something after 400 years for purely nationalistic reasons though. Maybe Mexicans will be up for it though if Americans accept being called Unitedstatesians in English.
>The name is now finally NOT centered around one nation.
'Gulf of the Americas' would make more sense in that case. But that doesn't project the intended message from the new administration.
You can justify it however you want, but the intention was not to be inclusive and I think that's pretty clear. Unless talking about annexing Greenland and absorbing Canada are also just ways of making us one big happy family, I think the intention of the name is clear, regardless of how much sense one can force it to make after the fact.
Salient point, the US is the only American country with America in it's actual name. Names of things change. It's how language works. Even though I think Gulf of America is actually more apt a name, I and most people in the US could care less what it's called. It's just Trump playing power games like China does with the "South China Sea" v. "Sea of Japan".
I have never heard American refer to anything but a United States resident, so I seriously doubt you. USian is disrespectful to the preferred demonym, if you do care about that.
The shores are 100% "America", referring to the North and South American continents. It's as if the EU renamed the Baltic Sea as the "Sea of Europe", as an attempted swipe at Russia, ignoring that Russia also is (partly) in Europe.
This name makes zero sense and is entirely stupid. Something like a gulf is named for its proximity to the immediate geographic body to identify it with increased precision. This is clear effort to pander to nationalism and racism, and to stir shit up and get people mad about it. It's old tricks.
The renaming of the Gulf of Mexico, or any well known place is something directly from the Dictator's Handbook.
If there is any question on how Trump wants to run the US, this proves he will ignore the Courts, Congress and US Constitution. Already he has broken so many laws any other president would be going through an impeachment right now.
Google is not a nation state and does not dictate geographical boundaries or names. Are you saying Mexico's preferences are superior to those of the US? Or that Google may disregard orders of a democratically-elected leader?
Map makers always are in a tough spot when nations disagree about the places and landforms they are depicting.
> Or that Google may disregard orders of a democratically-elected leader?
Yes because said democratically elected leader has absolutely no legal authority to tell a private business how they should label a geographic feature.
Mexico says it has the legal right to force Google to use it's preferred name for the part of the Gulf near Mexico.[1] Is your point simply that the US is more liberal and respectful of free speech than Mexico?
My point was that you miss-represented the scenario: Google has not been ordered by the President to do anything, because the president doesn't have that authority.
Your dishonest redirecting here is both transparent and insulting. Whether Mexico or the US is more "liberal and respectful of free speech" is neither relevant to this conversation or to my prior comment.
The reality is none of us can confidently declare things as unequivocally as you do. Google knows best what their risk profile is. Mexico threatens to sue and yet you are so confident the US could not do the same?
Maybe there's a federal contract in the mix, or maybe users are federal contractors. Google is an institution, figuratively speaking. Maybe being a globally-significant provider, Google has seen the trajectory similar disputes in dredging quasi-legal cruft like official interference with their services. Maybe they recognize that once you abandon democratic decision-making, you are adrift, and that's not a place they wish to be.
> The reality is none of us can confidently declare things as unequivocally as you do.
You can absolutely confidently declare that Google has not been ordered to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico. First, because that hasn't happened, and second, because the President doesn't have the authority to do that.
You're retreating from your claim. Google isn't "just following orders", they made a calculated decision.
> Google may disregard orders of a democratically-elected leader?
what? random companies need to comply with press releases from politicians now? does this apply to all politicians and press releases? or just ones from people who have a proven record of asking for very stupid things and enacting very dumb punishments on people they feel haven't respected said stupid things?
> random companies need to comply with press releases from politicians now?
You are misinformed. This was not a "press release", it was an executive order. [1]
Google naturally has some expressive latitude, but that's constrained by legal, diplomatic, social, contractual and political considerations that all map makers have when they balance what they might personally feel is a nice boundary or place name, versus the legally-protected designations of sovereign nations and their governments.
There are many name disputes and even border disputes, just ask China about Taiwan. If I were Google, I wouldn't want to make that decision either. I'd show Chinese users the borders as defined by the Chinese government and other users whatever their government says is the border. That's what's happening here as well, and as dumb as I think this decision is, I think that's fine. I wouldn't want Google to be the final arbiter over names and borders. They should be as neutral as possible and get their data from official sources, and if they are in conflict, show users the result from their respective official source.
"As neutral as possible" would mean using both names, one in parentheses, for people in the US just as they are doing it for people in other nations.
Google isn't taking a neutral stance here, they're choosing sides.
I don't think this is the largest issue by a longshot. I'll keep calling it by its correct name no matter what Trump says. It's basically just Trump trolling. But Google, and other large corporations, are kowtowing and it's a very bad look.
Executive orders have *zero* authority over private companies and individuals.
An executive order can say that, for example, the FTC should sanction companies that don't refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, as the FTC is an executive-branch organization. Now, whether the FTC has that authority of private companies would be hashed out in court.
You're mistaking "executive order" for "royal edict".
