Google Maps blocks Gulf of America reviews after rename criticism | Hacker News Reader

Google Maps blocks Gulf of America reviews after rename criticism

bbc.com

8 pointsandsoitis9 comments

>"To prevent this, Google has turned off posting." Silence, peasants!

Names are things we agree on, or they lose their utility. Also, consistency would be nice. If you object (as Trump does) to Ft. Bragg -> Ft. Liberty, Ft. Hood -> Ft. Cavazos, etc. why are you renaming major geographical features?

We don't agree on names or geography, which is why Google does this for tons of other regions.

Think of this:

- East Sea vs Sea of Japan (Japan vs South Korea)

- Who owns Kashmir on the Map (India vs Pakistan)

These are all areas of contention, i.e. Malvinas/Falklands. This, otoh, is not, so we do (or did, anyway) agree on the name. It has been universally referred to as the Gulf of Mexico as long as I remember. I'd literally never heard of Gulf of America or have seen it referred to as such on any map until Trump did this. Like Denali/Mt. McKinley, it is being done to belittle or disparage some despised population.

Since Google has turned off posting, here are some other thoughts.

Try right-clicking on the map and reporting a data issue. If that fails (and I've heard reports that Google has also broken it), I noticed there are many other place names on the maps referencing or named after Gulf of Mexico. Reporting inconsistent usage across the platform is worth attempting, too.

It appears Google hasn't broken the "Add photos and videos button", so another approach would be to upload photographs clearly showing the Gulf of Mexico name. This could be maps, or signed places, like the National Maritime Museum of the Gulf of Mexico in Mobile Alabama, pages from the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, or anything demonstrating the provenance of the Gulf of Mexico moniker.

That pesky speech must be silenced for the sake of improved social harmony and the great and glorious future of the nation.

Each country should be able to call a place whatever they want. It feels weird having the president declare it though.

So what about maps? UN? WHO? Google?

"Whatever they want" != "whatever the president decides to declare". Nobody was clamoring for this; nobody was voting for this as an election issue. It feels weird because it seems so random.

Or maybe not random. Maybe it's meant to be a "rah, rah, America!" distraction from something else. It doesn't feel like something that needed doing on its own merits, though.

Here in Argentina I think the Congress of each province decides the names. It's somewhat usual to rename something to the name of a dead politician (like a governor). People get angry, but not too angry to make a revolt.

I guess the National Congress can rename thing too, but I'm not sure the scope. And the President can issue an Emergency Executive Order overstepping the powers of the Congress, but only in case of an Emergency. It's used without a real emergency too, and the Congress may cancel it.

So ... I guess our president can rename the Antartica to Whiteland, but that would be unusual.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com