I get why people want Apple and Google to push back but ultimately there isn’t any logical approach for them to operate that isn’t “name things as the relevant governmental bodies name them”. Otherwise what source of truth is there?
The responsibility here is with a spineless government. An executive order is not a law and a congress that did its job would quickly contract these kind of mad king declarations.
It’s an international body of water that has had the same name for longer than the government that tried to rename it has existed. The renaming was an overtly political act. There are many logical approaches to leaving the name the same, and there is one logical approach to changing it (appeasement)
The government has no right to name geographic features. The names are established by popular usage, not the feds. As such Google and Apple should not listen to the demands of a body which has no right to make them in the first place.
“Popular usage” is all very well and good until you have to quantify it in some way. No way it wouldn’t be a complete mess.
For example: the body of water between the UK and France. The UK calls it “the English Channel”. The French call it “la Manche”. It has no official international name. In Google Maps both names are used depending on what country/language you are using. Choosing one via popular usage would not be a good solution.
No, they show what the respective government datasets contain
Which matches popular usage in the respective countries. Your example is a non sequitir for explaining why matching popular usage can't possibly work.
For the popular usage of major geographical features to change is extremely rare, so I am skeptical that it's a huge amount of work to keep up with changes in popular usage. People made maps before they had automated pipelines for ingesting geographical names.
My point isn’t so much that it would be impossible to do, more that it’s giving more power to the tech giants to define things however they wish (given they get to define “popular”). In this instance that would be a good thing but as a precedent I’m a lot less sure.
This is a power they already have. Google could ignore this change just as MapQuest has done. They are not legally compelled to follow government naming conventions, and I think it would be a clear first amendment violation to attempt to compel them to do so.
What about researchers at universities? Maintain a list of experts and conduct a poll whenever an event like this happens or enough of the experts request.
Or require an act of Congress. Obviously, we can no longer rely on Executive Orders being careful, thought-out, or lasting changes. Does any mapping organization want to change names back and forth? Does any user want to see these changes?
Right but who maintains that list of experts? Google? Aren’t we just giving the tech giants more power in that scenario?
Yes, in this specific instance it would give us an outcome we want. But in the long term we’re replacing democratic government with corporate control. Which doesn’t seem good.
Comments
I get why people want Apple and Google to push back but ultimately there isn’t any logical approach for them to operate that isn’t “name things as the relevant governmental bodies name them”. Otherwise what source of truth is there?
The responsibility here is with a spineless government. An executive order is not a law and a congress that did its job would quickly contract these kind of mad king declarations.
It’s an international body of water that has had the same name for longer than the government that tried to rename it has existed. The renaming was an overtly political act. There are many logical approaches to leaving the name the same, and there is one logical approach to changing it (appeasement)
The government has no right to name geographic features. The names are established by popular usage, not the feds. As such Google and Apple should not listen to the demands of a body which has no right to make them in the first place.
“Popular usage” is all very well and good until you have to quantify it in some way. No way it wouldn’t be a complete mess.
For example: the body of water between the UK and France. The UK calls it “the English Channel”. The French call it “la Manche”. It has no official international name. In Google Maps both names are used depending on what country/language you are using. Choosing one via popular usage would not be a good solution.
Huh? Isn't that exactly what you've described? In the UK they show the popular usage in the UK, and the same in France.
No, they show what the respective governments describe them as in official datasets etc.
Which matches popular usage in the respective countries. Your example is a non sequitir for explaining why matching popular usage can't possibly work.
For the popular usage of major geographical features to change is extremely rare, so I am skeptical that it's a huge amount of work to keep up with changes in popular usage. People made maps before they had automated pipelines for ingesting geographical names.
My point isn’t so much that it would be impossible to do, more that it’s giving more power to the tech giants to define things however they wish (given they get to define “popular”). In this instance that would be a good thing but as a precedent I’m a lot less sure.
This is a power they already have. Google could ignore this change just as MapQuest has done. They are not legally compelled to follow government naming conventions, and I think it would be a clear first amendment violation to attempt to compel them to do so.
Why did they comply with this so readily? And also this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49520439
What about researchers at universities? Maintain a list of experts and conduct a poll whenever an event like this happens or enough of the experts request.
Or require an act of Congress. Obviously, we can no longer rely on Executive Orders being careful, thought-out, or lasting changes. Does any mapping organization want to change names back and forth? Does any user want to see these changes?
Right but who maintains that list of experts? Google? Aren’t we just giving the tech giants more power in that scenario?
Yes, in this specific instance it would give us an outcome we want. But in the long term we’re replacing democratic government with corporate control. Which doesn’t seem good.
How are they determining the relevant government bodies?