8 ms·

Google Maps now shows the 'Gulf of America'

88 points by jasperr1 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
xp84 2y ago
I find the reaction to this to be interesting, because it's obviously arbitrary, and there are thousands of geographical features whose names vary widely between countries, and not only for the obvious language reasons. So, each country clearly has the right to call international water bodies whatever they want. Personally, I don't care what it's called, but the new name is fine. But because Trump did it, some Americans find this inherently problematic, in a way I doubt anyone would have if that had happened to be the name given 300 years ago. And I doubt any Mexican ever felt the old name was inappropriate. If anyone has an argument that I'm missing something in this assessment, I'm happy to listen.
- throwaway5752 2y ago
  What was the rationale to do it. Was it in the name of accuracy? Does it further US national interests or have any other benefit?
  - kylehotchkiss 2y ago
    shock-and-awe presidency. Create just enough chaos over meaningless things to help distract people from higher impact legislation (and to slow down court opposition to them, by keeping the courts busy dealing with other nonsense)
    - throwaway5752 2y ago
      And it has the benefit (depending on perspective) of further weakening the US by harming diplomatic relationships with the two nations with contiguous borders. Canadian statehood and renaming the Gulf of Mexico were never brought up during the campaign. These actions serve no interest other than to antagonize American allies. They weaken the security posture of the United States, and that is ultimately the point, like soon to be DNI Gabbard.
      - xp84 2y ago
        I personally think ALL of his Canada BS is mental, so, no arguments there. But what right does Mexico have to object to what we call a body of water? He's not renaming what we'll call Mexico itself. These things serve a real purpose which is to troll the easily offended. In that, it's a huge success, as every breath wasted whingeing about this harmless renaming is one that isn't used to ask good questions like "Why fight a trade war with Canada instead of asking why we even have free trade with a country (Mexico) whose wages are so low that it promotes the gutting of American industry." That would be a good question to ask Trump. We should have a bilateral trade deal with Canada, which would strengthen both countries, and cut Mexico out of it. But all this has distracted from how poorly he's executing his tariff strategy.
    - JKCalhoun 2y ago
      I'm just here hoping that the billionaires can get a little richer while no one's paying attention.
      - kylehotchkiss 2y ago
        If they were doing something cool with the money, great! But seems like it just gets funneled into yachts and converting perfectly good Hawaiian real estate to doomsday bunkers
        hypothesis 2y ago
        At least one guy is/was trying to get to Mars or something, potentially spending us all in the process…
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      So, no, no national security benefits, no other benefits.
  - inverted_flag 2y ago
    Red meat for Trump’s base.
  - breadwinner 2y ago
    Vanity of course. Same reason we want Canada and Greenland. Makes us look bigger on a map. Some people think it is because of minerals or national security and so on. But to a narcissist, vanity trumps everything.
  - floydnoel 2y ago
    so far as I can tell, nobody here has stated the real reason that I've heard from conservative circles. Which makes sense, probably very few on this site would ever encounter them. but anyway, what i heard was that former president passed a bunch of EO's banning all future oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. I guess the easiest way to invalidate them was the rename the Gulf.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > because Trump did it, some Americans find this inherently problematic Paired with the tariffs on Mexico and Canada, I think it’s more a reaction to what it says about America’s view towards its neighbours. American power is overwhelming. Theoretically, it should have been balanced by now. It hasn’t because we’ve been a good steward of our alliances. “Gulf of America,” Mare Nostrum; at what point does it become rational for Mexico to seek a security guarantor against America? “Speak softly, and carry a big stick.” Xi forgot the first part and may have squandered what ought to have been China’s century on account of it. The pushback to a needlessly-provocative imperialesque renaming is American society doing what China’s couldn’t. (Broadly, I agree with your point. A lot of people are perpetually on Defcon 1. The renaming is dumb. But it isn’t going to undermine America.)
- kylehotchkiss 2y ago
  I think there's a habit amongst people who didn't vote for trump to catastrophize his every move, which helps him by distracting people from maybe the more consequential decisions he makes. Interestingly he didn't name it the Gulf of USA, the Gulf of the United States, the Gulf of Florida or The Gulf of Freedom and Bald Eagles, but after the continent itself, which Mexico is in fact a part of. What's the expression... "don't take the bait"? There are far worse things happening in the White House for people on both sides of the aisle right now.
  - thepasswordis 2y ago
    Gulf of America just makes more sense. Calling this the "Gulf of Mexico" would be like calling The Black Sea "The Gulf of Turkey".
    - kylehotchkiss 2y ago
      I agree, the coastline is mostly shared between the two. Since you brought up Turkey, they renamed themselves recently. Practically a lot of people just can't keep up every countries nuances and just use the old names. It's fine. It seems like a lot of people still use Bombay over Mumbai too ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
      - thepasswordis 2y ago
        A funny thing: I’ve spent a considerable amount of time in Mumbai, and there definitely seems to be a significant number of native residents who still call it Bombay. It was to the point where we briefly wondered if this was referring to two different parts of the same city (south of the Sea Link bridge is Bombay, the rest is Mumbai, maybe). Names are complicated! Germany/Deutschland, Holland/The Netherlands etc. Interesting that Wikipedia keeps “Turkey”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey They also keep Gulf of Mexico. As a programmer: localization is a PITA.
        kylehotchkiss 2y ago
- packymcclone 2y ago
  Not sure if this works as an argument, but in this case Google added the new US name even in international versions of Maps as a secondary name. That does feel a bit odd.
  - jasperr1 2y ago
    It is definitely odd. It seems as if Google wants to cozy up to Trump like other tech companies are trying to do.
    - BuyMyBitcoins 2y ago
      I believe it is Google’s policy to show users official map labels based on the geolocation data of the user. If you compare maps between countries with border disputes, the one you’re “in” always shows all of the disputed territory as belonging to that nation.
      - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
        But this thread is talking about how the label appears to third countries. In this case, we're seeing two names: a) a localised version of the 500-year-old, internationally established name b) another name that someone made up 5 minutes ago.
- chuckadams 2y ago
  I hate it, it represents the ugly stupid jingoism of the times … but it is the “official” name now, so I can hardly fault Google for updating the name. Myself, I’m calling it the Gulf of Fuck Trump, but a lot of things are going to get that name in my house.
  - neilv 2y ago
    I won't say what I've named after certain regimes, but it involves dietary fiber.
- tmpz22 2y ago
  The rational take is to understand it within the context of recent expansionist rhetoric which includes the annexation of Canada, strong-arm purchase of Greenland, and conquest of Gaza and Panama. You don't have to go that far back in a history book to understand the dangers of expansionist rhetoric in a globalist world and how it is directly against American interests to threaten war with our neighbors and allies. Threatening war with neighbors and allies is not a Christian thing to do.
  - lazide 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > it’s the most Christian thing folks have done in a long time Shoehorning conquest as uniquely Christian or even European is ahistoric. Almost every civilisation did it. And the Church was expansionist because Justinian was a literal emperor. (The exceptions to the rule being in the most recently-settled parts of the world, e.g. Australia. Mostly because they didn’t have time to get on with it.) We’re an expansionist species. That’s a curse and a blessing. Above all, it’s human.
      - lazide 2y ago
        I never said uniquely. But it was on the flag of all the entities involved in Europe, which makes it pretty European colonialist/invasiony adjacent at least eh? Hell, I didn’t even bring up the Conquistadors [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquistador https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquistador], or the Crusades, which were also pretty explicit about the whole ‘bringing Christ to the unbelievers’. You bring up Australia, but the Church was insanely abusive to the natives. Same in Canada. Cultural annihilation and in some views genocidal. That is a type of conquering. It just didn’t make the radar of ‘war of conquest’ explicitly because they were so weak it wasn’t needed. Just ‘skirmishes’.[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases_in_Australia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse...] Don’t get me wrong, I’m not claiming these actions were ‘Christ like’. Unlike most Christians I know, I’ve read the Bible (many times). The Koran too. If someone tried to claim Islam wasn’t involved in expansion/conquering, I’d also have plenty of documentation lined up there too. And unlike Christianity, Mohammed was very explicit on the ‘go out and conquer in the name of god’ thing. And kill all the heathens (except the ‘good ones’). They’re just not relevant in the current political discussion eh? There are religions without a lot of ‘go out and conquer the heathens’ history - Judaism, Hinduism (they tend to just ‘absorb’/co-opt everything), Jainism, Daoism (maybe?). But at least European style Christianity definitely isn’t one of them.
- dijksterhuis 2y ago
  > If anyone has an argument that I'm missing something in this assessment, I'm happy to listen. Hi, British person here. Yeah, we have a bit of, ahem, experience, of showing up to places and just changing place names and stuff because "it's just better that way... according to us". Generally speaking, people didn't like it. Factor in the statements about taking over Canada/Greenland/Palestine/Panama for USA's own personal gains, regardless of whether they are negotiating positions or not, and it sure seems similar to what we used to do "back in the day". You didn't like it when we did it to you. I'm not surprised other people aren't liking it when it either is being done by the USA, or even just appears to be being done as a result of some "negotiating position". > I doubt any Mexican ever felt the old name was inappropriate. There's at least one Mexican who believes the old name was appropriate. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cvg6gndgl1ro https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cvg6gndgl1ro > it's obviously arbitrary If it's arbitrary, why is there a need to change it in the first place? it doesn't matter. it's a body of water. who cares what the name is. we could call it 75928ajfh3845. so why the need to change it in the first place? (cough see first point cough)
  - xp84 2y ago
    Note: I'm not making any defense of the idiotic Canada/Greenland stuff. I don't approve of it and I won't defend it. > showing up to places and just changing place names and stuff because > You didn't like it when we did it to you. My whole argument was only that international waters between multiple countries is a special case where nobody can claim to be the "rightful" namers, except maybe for an argument that say, Australia or Japan couldn't be taken seriously at naming the Gulf since it doesn't touch any of them. My point was only that it's a troll that we shouldn't care about.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      We should care that we're being trolled by .... * the POTUS *
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- stevage 2y ago
  >But because Trump did it, some Americans find this inherently problematic, It's not "because Trump did it". It's very unusual for geographic place names to be renamed at the whim of a single politician. It's extremely unusual for it to happen by fiat, so quickly. It's absolutely unheard of for a feature so large, and shared by more than one country, to be renamed in this way in the modern era.
  - xp84 2y ago
    Wasn’t it Obama who renamed Mt. McKinley by fiat after 100 years, also for political reasons? This is no more important than that decision. Both Presidents had the authority. And while the Gulf itself is shared, there’s no reason both countries automatically call it the same thing. After all, the name actually used by Mexico is in Spanish anyway.
    - ytpete 2y ago
      Besides already being the original indigenous name for the mountain, "Denali" was also the name already in use by many locals and outdoor enthusiasts elsewhere. It was already the name officially used by the Alaska state government, and the state had formally requested the federal government do that same way back in the 70s. Accepting that request is far from changing the name "by fiat" – especially not to a newly invented name that no one was using or asking for. And that's before you even get into the difference between choosing a name out of respect for an original indigenous name vs. an intentionally jingoistic and self-aggrandizing name chosen to represent a new area of imperial possessiveness.
      - xp84 2y ago
        > intentionally jingoistic and self-aggrandizing name chosen to represent a new area of imperial possessiveness. It already had such a name, just one probably named by Mexico if I had to guess.
        ytpete 2y ago
        Considering the word "Mexico" comes from the indigenous people of the region while "America" was a name brought by European colonists... I'm not sure you can really say both of those share the same air of imperial possessiveness.
- oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
  > each country clearly has the right to call international water bodies whatever they want Sure, but the USA has no more right than any other country to enforce its name on the rest of us, and no right at all to enforce a name for space it does not own.
walthamstow 2y ago
I get "Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)" on a Japanese connection. This stuff is obviously pointless and silly but it's nothing new. I'm sure Google Maps shows UK and French users different names for what I would call the English Channel.
- kenhwang 2y ago
  I see Gulf of America when it's zoomed in, but Gulf of Mexico when zoomed very out or very very in.
  - stevage 2y ago
    Probably a caching issue
  - llacb47 2y ago
    Likely cached tiles either on your end or Google's servers
  - nope96 2y ago
    I see "Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)" when zoomed in all the way. "Gulf of America" when zoomed out.
- chrsw 2y ago
  Like another poster on this topic said, it's not pointless or silly. It's a demonstration of power.
  - CharlesW 2y ago
    As well as an example of the "flood the zone" strategy designed to overwhelm and distract.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Hizonner 2y ago
    You misspelled "demonstration of small dick energy".
amazingamazing 2y ago
Gulf of America is a more inclusive name anyway since both USA and Mexico are part of North America, but since it's Trump everyone hates it. People can't really even articulate what's wrong with it in a vacuum without mentioning Trump. I don't even like Trump, but this "renaming" is neutral at worst, inclusive at best.
- darknavi 2y ago
  I'm not sure what "(North) America" means and what Trump thinks "America" means are the same thing.
  - amazingamazing 2y ago
    why does it matter?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      It’s annoying. It was annoying when San Francisco school boards were doing it. It’s annoying when Trump does it. The illiberal left and right need to just create their own maps and dictionaries and leave the rest of us alone.
    - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
      Motive matters, this principle is long-established in most Western countries legislatures.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- beart 2y ago
  The counter reaction is strong as well. I don't agree with this so I must just hate Trump, right? It's a feedback loop in both directions. Frankly I just think it's a waste of time and energy. I'm referring both to the original action, as well as the continuing ramp up of divisiveness.
yosito 2y ago
The real news here is that GNIS has been updated with the name. It doesn't seem that Google made an independent decision to change the name. Resistance to this change would really have to happen at the government level, not the tech level. Which really seems to be the point that's being made with this whole ordeal. It's a symbolic move to demonstrate to everyone that what they say goes and that the system isn't resisting their power.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  Where does it end though? If he decides tomorrow to start calling Canada "Beaverland," will all our maps change again?
  - amazingamazing 2y ago
    why waste time and energy discussing silly things he might do when he is literally doing silly things now, for real?
    - Nevermark 2y ago
      > Where does it end though? If he decides tomorrow to start calling Canada "Beaverland," will all our maps change again? reply > why waste time and energy discussing silly things he might do when he is literally doing silly things now, for real? The example used was making a larger point than, oh no, "Canada -> Beaverstan", for laughs. The point is: What line would be too far for industry to resist presidential renaming by fiat. A kind of power with known risks. Renaming by fiat has a name, "Newspeak", a term coined in the not very silly book, 1984, by George Orwell. Trump has a history of doing lots of "silly" things just to see if he can. It is a low risk way for him to pre-test, or pre-expand, any barriers to more serious expressions of his power. Such as renaming things in a way that undermines or alters the impact of laws.
      - amazingamazing 2y ago
        Again, there’s no need for hypotheticals. Trump is doing plenty of crazy stuff in reality. And this is a representative democracy, if the representative does those things, so be it. If we don’t like, we get another to revert.
tonymet 2y ago
So many points of interest have been renamed in the past 20 years. I'm expecting the same level of endorsement for those renamings to carry over to this one.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  Tell us a few, let's see what we think.
egypturnash 2y ago
Well that's Google Maps deleted off my phone then.
- jasperr1 2y ago
  Seems a little harsh. What app do you plan on switching to?
  - nickthegreek 2y ago
    Personally, I’ve been using Apple Maps for over 8 years without issue. I just checked the gulf, it’s of mexico and I am in the US.
    - ryandvm 2y ago
      I have bad news for you if you think Apple is not going to fall in line.
      - nickthegreek 2y ago
        Well they haven't. Neither has MapQuest, and weirdly Waze..
        npteljes 2y ago
        Give it time. If they still haven't renamed after a year, that's something. But even then, maybe just some lag.
        nickthegreek 2y ago
        Indeed. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-11/apple-is-renaming-gulf-of-mexico-to-gulf-of-america-on-maps-app https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-11/apple-is-...
  - egypturnash 2y ago
racl101 2y ago
It shows "Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)" in Canada (aka The soon-to-be 51st State). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- jeffbee 2y ago
  Considering the relative populations of states, shouldn't Canada be at least 10-20 states?
  - AlotOfReading 2y ago
    Approximately the same population as the existing state of California. I suspect giving Canadians 40 senators and proportionally more representatives by splitting it up would be a political concern for annexation-hawks.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      Giving it two senators, and as many representatives as California, would be of massive concern to annexation-hawks - to the point that they have to not be thinking to even consider it.
      - AlotOfReading 2y ago
        Didn't think about this, but a new state would lead to a reduction in representatives for high population states like California because of the cap on the house of representatives. California would go from 52 -> 46 reps if my math is right, which is also how many the megastate of Canada would also get.
  - quantified 2y ago
    They have 10 provinces and 3 territories. I think that would map to 10 states. Yes it's ridiculous to give that many people 2 senators. The House redistricting will be super interesting.
    - 2y ago
losvedir 2y ago
I was surprised to learn when living in Bahrain that what I knew of as the "Persian Gulf", is there known as the "Arabian Gulf". Only tangentially relevant, but kind of interesting.
nonrandomstring 2y ago
I think the gulf of America is in Washington right now.
- gazook89 2y ago
  I was wanting a graphic t shirt with a skull in be style of a topographic map, with the empty space between the ears labeled as the Gulf of America. Alas, I have art skills and didn’t want to fuss with midjourney for a result half way there only to realize I wasn’t ever goiing to pull the trigger.
- tonymet 2y ago
  Washingtonians prefer we use Washington for the state and DC for the Federal District of Columbia.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    Are Washingtonians from the state or the district?
    - tonymet 2y ago
      Washingtonians are from Washington .
cratermoon 2y ago
Whatever you do, don't right click on the map and select "Report a data problem".
bee_rider 2y ago
I mean this is all dumb chest thumping. But, doesn’t it make us look smaller to name the gulf after us? When it was the Gulf of Mexico, it was named from our point of view. It was the gulf, among our many gulfs, that we share with Mexico. Now, by the same logic it is named from their point of view.
- sparrish 2y ago
  It's not named after 'us'. All those in America (South, North, Central) are called Americans. I spent several years in Paraguay where I met a lot of South Americans. Mexicans are North Americans and the 'Gulf of America' is more inclusive considering 1/2 of the land mass touching it belongs to the US.
  - danorama 2y ago
    I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that "inclusion" wasn't Trump's intent here.
  - gritspartan 2y ago
    Except, no part of Central nor South America touches the Gulf of Mexico. The only three countries which coasts on the Gulf are the US, Mexico, and Cuba. All of these are in North America, and I'm pretty the latter two are not going to go along with the idea.
- dingaling 2y ago
  > it was named from our point of view. Actually it was named from the perspective of Spanish explorers. Originally Gulf of New Spain but by 1569 had become Gulf of Mexico.
Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
I think every country should call it "Gulf of country", in France they direct all map providers to call it the Gulf of France, in Australia, they call it the Gulf of Australia, and so on.
- ryandvm 2y ago
  Honestly, this would be the funniest possible outcome.
- Sparyjerry 2y ago
  That's actually hilarious, but America also stands for North America and South America. Gulf of The United States doesn't quite ring the same.
  - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
    I saw a "Gulf of the Americas" suggestion which makes the second-most sense, after not changing it at all.
    - dannyw 2y ago
      It’s absolutely pointless, but Gulf of the Americas almost has a nice bonding tone.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    This is a nice interpretation of it, and maybe if this sticks we can reinterpret it that way, but this is coming from the guy who coined MAGA, the title of the order is "RESTORING NAMES THAT HONOR AMERICAN GREATNESS", and the text makes it very clear that it's about the US: > It is in the national interest to promote the extraordinary heritage of our Nation and ensure future generations of American citizens celebrate the legacy of our American heroes. ... in recognition of this flourishing economic resource and its critical importance to our Nation’s economy and its people, I am directing that it officially be renamed the Gulf of America.
diggernet 2y ago
One detail I've not seen mentioned in these discussions is that the EO specifically identifies "the U.S. Continental Shelf area bounded on the northeast, north, and northwest by the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida and extending to the seaward boundary with Mexico and Cuba". I'm not sure exactly what that looks like on a map, but it's clearly focused on US coastal waters. (Which kind of makes sense, because GNIS has no naming authority outside of US borders.) But it also makes the implementation by Google Maps wrong, since a large part (a majority, I think) of the gulf is still the Gulf of Mexico. It seems like the area should be drawn as two adjacent gulfs, the Gulf of America to the North and East, and the Gulf of Mexico to the South and West. (Not debating the merits, just pondering mapping details.)
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  This depends on whether it's a regional name applied to the body of water or a specific name applied to the territorial waters within the greater region encompassed by the original name. Google has chosen to regard it as a regional name applied to the entire body rather than as a specific name for territorial waters implied by the EO. They do this for other regionalized names like "South China Sea" (e.g. "East Sea" in Vietnam).
Hizonner 2y ago
It's showing up in parentheses outside of the US. How about if we all compromise on Gulf of Donald Trump Can your-favorite-letters-here?
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
Related: Just searched Google Maps for Mt. Denali, Alaska only for it to return results for Mount McKinley immediately. Note I'm not really sure if that's anything to do with an executive order or that it was Alaskans wanting it called Denali while many elsewhere in the country incl at the Federal level called it McKinley.
- TheJoeMan 2y ago
  I think if you're bragging to your buddies you summited Denali it has a much more air of mystery than "I climbed McKinley".
swah 2y ago
I really enjoyed the "joke" the other day where some standup guy said that we have the tech now to make everyone happy: just show this part on Google Maps as China to this set of people and Taiwan to this other set of people etc etc
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
sethd 2y ago
Discussion of this issue on OpenStreetMap forum: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/gulf-of-america-gulf-of-mexico/124571 https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/gulf-of-america-gulf-o...
doener 2y ago
Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42859580 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42859580
octocop 2y ago
In Sweden it shows both. "Mexikanska Golfen(Amerikanska Golfen)"
Xunjin 2y ago
A question, does the executive order (if it was actually signed by the President) have the "law power" to actually oblige Google Maps to make this change? If not, is this correct following USA law? Also is this matter being questioned in superior Justice instances?
- paulcole 2y ago
  > If not, is this correct following USA law? Why wouldn’t it be? What’s stopping them from calling it Gulf of Google if they want to? Trump isn’t forcing Google to do anything. They use a database for their place names and use what is in that database.
  - xattt 2y ago
    The assumption is there’s a global body that registers place names and regional borders that Google would vet against.
    - hiatus 2y ago
      There is not. See the whole Taiwan thing.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- silverquiet 2y ago
  Growing up I was told of the fable of "The Emperor's New Clothes" on occasion. I always found it ridiculous, but in the last decade it has been quite relevant. As a kid, I thought it was about the ridiculousness of the Emperor, but I've come around to the understanding that it's about how power creates its own reality.
  - Xunjin 2y ago
    Thank you, that makes a lot of sense.
- 2y ago
LimeLimestone 2y ago
What's next? Will New Mexico be called New America? /s
acc_297 2y ago
Someone's already made a chrome extension to search+replace "Gulf of America" to "Gulf of Mexico" in online text I don't think it works for google maps place titles but no doubt someone will fix that. It's a new level of public-but-divided space when we all start running client side software to reinforce our world view. I'm certainly not criticizing that chrome extension I think that is funny, but it's also something to think on.
- NicuCalcea 2y ago
  It's not a new level at all, these extensions have existed since shortly after extensions started existing. A few examples: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/trump-dog/bdhcfpbgaifaaechanicakocebiniinl https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/trump-dog/bdhcfpbga... https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/tralalump/epclgaeglajobpbkkcejdeblbhojegag https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/tralalump/epclgaegl... https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/cloud-to-butt-plus/apmlngnhgbnjpajelfkmabhkfapgnoai https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/cloud-to-butt-plus/...
insane_dreamer 2y ago
Just refreshed Apple Maps on my phone, and it also shows Gulf of America where over the weekend it was still Gulf of Mexico.
- bdangubic 2y ago
  refresh on Canada too, it’ll shown North American 51st State :)
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    My phone says "Canada (52nd State)", while Greenland is marked "(51st State)" -- not sure who decided the order there. Gaza just says "(US Territory)" -- too poor to warrant statehood.

88 points by jasperr1 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

xp84 2y ago

I find the reaction to this to be interesting, because it's obviously arbitrary, and there are thousands of geographical features whose names vary widely between countries, and not only for the obvious language reasons. So, each country clearly has the right to call international water bodies whatever they want. Personally, I don't care what it's called, but the new name is fine. But because Trump did it, some Americans find this inherently problematic, in a way I doubt anyone would have if that had happened to be the name given 300 years ago. And I doubt any Mexican ever felt the old name was inappropriate. If anyone has an argument that I'm missing something in this assessment, I'm happy to listen.

throwaway5752 2y ago
What was the rationale to do it. Was it in the name of accuracy? Does it further US national interests or have any other benefit?
- kylehotchkiss 2y ago
  shock-and-awe presidency. Create just enough chaos over meaningless things to help distract people from higher impact legislation (and to slow down court opposition to them, by keeping the courts busy dealing with other nonsense)
  - throwaway5752 2y ago
    And it has the benefit (depending on perspective) of further weakening the US by harming diplomatic relationships with the two nations with contiguous borders. Canadian statehood and renaming the Gulf of Mexico were never brought up during the campaign. These actions serve no interest other than to antagonize American allies. They weaken the security posture of the United States, and that is ultimately the point, like soon to be DNI Gabbard.
    - xp84 2y ago
      I personally think ALL of his Canada BS is mental, so, no arguments there. But what right does Mexico have to object to what we call a body of water? He's not renaming what we'll call Mexico itself. These things serve a real purpose which is to troll the easily offended. In that, it's a huge success, as every breath wasted whingeing about this harmless renaming is one that isn't used to ask good questions like "Why fight a trade war with Canada instead of asking why we even have free trade with a country (Mexico) whose wages are so low that it promotes the gutting of American industry." That would be a good question to ask Trump. We should have a bilateral trade deal with Canada, which would strengthen both countries, and cut Mexico out of it. But all this has distracted from how poorly he's executing his tariff strategy.
  - JKCalhoun 2y ago
    I'm just here hoping that the billionaires can get a little richer while no one's paying attention.
    - kylehotchkiss 2y ago
      If they were doing something cool with the money, great! But seems like it just gets funneled into yachts and converting perfectly good Hawaiian real estate to doomsday bunkers
      - hypothesis 2y ago
        At least one guy is/was trying to get to Mars or something, potentially spending us all in the process…
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    So, no, no national security benefits, no other benefits.
- inverted_flag 2y ago
  Red meat for Trump’s base.
- breadwinner 2y ago
  Vanity of course. Same reason we want Canada and Greenland. Makes us look bigger on a map. Some people think it is because of minerals or national security and so on. But to a narcissist, vanity trumps everything.
- floydnoel 2y ago
  so far as I can tell, nobody here has stated the real reason that I've heard from conservative circles. Which makes sense, probably very few on this site would ever encounter them. but anyway, what i heard was that former president passed a bunch of EO's banning all future oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. I guess the easiest way to invalidate them was the rename the Gulf.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> because Trump did it, some Americans find this inherently problematic Paired with the tariffs on Mexico and Canada, I think it’s more a reaction to what it says about America’s view towards its neighbours. American power is overwhelming. Theoretically, it should have been balanced by now. It hasn’t because we’ve been a good steward of our alliances. “Gulf of America,” Mare Nostrum; at what point does it become rational for Mexico to seek a security guarantor against America? “Speak softly, and carry a big stick.” Xi forgot the first part and may have squandered what ought to have been China’s century on account of it. The pushback to a needlessly-provocative imperialesque renaming is American society doing what China’s couldn’t. (Broadly, I agree with your point. A lot of people are perpetually on Defcon 1. The renaming is dumb. But it isn’t going to undermine America.)
kylehotchkiss 2y ago
I think there's a habit amongst people who didn't vote for trump to catastrophize his every move, which helps him by distracting people from maybe the more consequential decisions he makes. Interestingly he didn't name it the Gulf of USA, the Gulf of the United States, the Gulf of Florida or The Gulf of Freedom and Bald Eagles, but after the continent itself, which Mexico is in fact a part of. What's the expression... "don't take the bait"? There are far worse things happening in the White House for people on both sides of the aisle right now.
- thepasswordis 2y ago
  Gulf of America just makes more sense. Calling this the "Gulf of Mexico" would be like calling The Black Sea "The Gulf of Turkey".
  - kylehotchkiss 2y ago
    I agree, the coastline is mostly shared between the two. Since you brought up Turkey, they renamed themselves recently. Practically a lot of people just can't keep up every countries nuances and just use the old names. It's fine. It seems like a lot of people still use Bombay over Mumbai too ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    - thepasswordis 2y ago
      A funny thing: I’ve spent a considerable amount of time in Mumbai, and there definitely seems to be a significant number of native residents who still call it Bombay. It was to the point where we briefly wondered if this was referring to two different parts of the same city (south of the Sea Link bridge is Bombay, the rest is Mumbai, maybe). Names are complicated! Germany/Deutschland, Holland/The Netherlands etc. Interesting that Wikipedia keeps “Turkey”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey They also keep Gulf of Mexico. As a programmer: localization is a PITA.
      - kylehotchkiss 2y ago
packymcclone 2y ago
Not sure if this works as an argument, but in this case Google added the new US name even in international versions of Maps as a secondary name. That does feel a bit odd.
- jasperr1 2y ago
  It is definitely odd. It seems as if Google wants to cozy up to Trump like other tech companies are trying to do.
  - BuyMyBitcoins 2y ago
    I believe it is Google’s policy to show users official map labels based on the geolocation data of the user. If you compare maps between countries with border disputes, the one you’re “in” always shows all of the disputed territory as belonging to that nation.
    - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
      But this thread is talking about how the label appears to third countries. In this case, we're seeing two names: a) a localised version of the 500-year-old, internationally established name b) another name that someone made up 5 minutes ago.
chuckadams 2y ago
I hate it, it represents the ugly stupid jingoism of the times … but it is the “official” name now, so I can hardly fault Google for updating the name. Myself, I’m calling it the Gulf of Fuck Trump, but a lot of things are going to get that name in my house.
- neilv 2y ago
  I won't say what I've named after certain regimes, but it involves dietary fiber.
tmpz22 2y ago
The rational take is to understand it within the context of recent expansionist rhetoric which includes the annexation of Canada, strong-arm purchase of Greenland, and conquest of Gaza and Panama. You don't have to go that far back in a history book to understand the dangers of expansionist rhetoric in a globalist world and how it is directly against American interests to threaten war with our neighbors and allies. Threatening war with neighbors and allies is not a Christian thing to do.
- lazide 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > it’s the most Christian thing folks have done in a long time Shoehorning conquest as uniquely Christian or even European is ahistoric. Almost every civilisation did it. And the Church was expansionist because Justinian was a literal emperor. (The exceptions to the rule being in the most recently-settled parts of the world, e.g. Australia. Mostly because they didn’t have time to get on with it.) We’re an expansionist species. That’s a curse and a blessing. Above all, it’s human.
    - lazide 2y ago
      I never said uniquely. But it was on the flag of all the entities involved in Europe, which makes it pretty European colonialist/invasiony adjacent at least eh? Hell, I didn’t even bring up the Conquistadors [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquistador https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquistador], or the Crusades, which were also pretty explicit about the whole ‘bringing Christ to the unbelievers’. You bring up Australia, but the Church was insanely abusive to the natives. Same in Canada. Cultural annihilation and in some views genocidal. That is a type of conquering. It just didn’t make the radar of ‘war of conquest’ explicitly because they were so weak it wasn’t needed. Just ‘skirmishes’.[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases_in_Australia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse...] Don’t get me wrong, I’m not claiming these actions were ‘Christ like’. Unlike most Christians I know, I’ve read the Bible (many times). The Koran too. If someone tried to claim Islam wasn’t involved in expansion/conquering, I’d also have plenty of documentation lined up there too. And unlike Christianity, Mohammed was very explicit on the ‘go out and conquer in the name of god’ thing. And kill all the heathens (except the ‘good ones’). They’re just not relevant in the current political discussion eh? There are religions without a lot of ‘go out and conquer the heathens’ history - Judaism, Hinduism (they tend to just ‘absorb’/co-opt everything), Jainism, Daoism (maybe?). But at least European style Christianity definitely isn’t one of them.
dijksterhuis 2y ago
> If anyone has an argument that I'm missing something in this assessment, I'm happy to listen. Hi, British person here. Yeah, we have a bit of, ahem, experience, of showing up to places and just changing place names and stuff because "it's just better that way... according to us". Generally speaking, people didn't like it. Factor in the statements about taking over Canada/Greenland/Palestine/Panama for USA's own personal gains, regardless of whether they are negotiating positions or not, and it sure seems similar to what we used to do "back in the day". You didn't like it when we did it to you. I'm not surprised other people aren't liking it when it either is being done by the USA, or even just appears to be being done as a result of some "negotiating position". > I doubt any Mexican ever felt the old name was inappropriate. There's at least one Mexican who believes the old name was appropriate. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cvg6gndgl1ro https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cvg6gndgl1ro > it's obviously arbitrary If it's arbitrary, why is there a need to change it in the first place? it doesn't matter. it's a body of water. who cares what the name is. we could call it 75928ajfh3845. so why the need to change it in the first place? (cough see first point cough)
- xp84 2y ago
  Note: I'm not making any defense of the idiotic Canada/Greenland stuff. I don't approve of it and I won't defend it. > showing up to places and just changing place names and stuff because > You didn't like it when we did it to you. My whole argument was only that international waters between multiple countries is a special case where nobody can claim to be the "rightful" namers, except maybe for an argument that say, Australia or Japan couldn't be taken seriously at naming the Gulf since it doesn't touch any of them. My point was only that it's a troll that we shouldn't care about.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    We should care that we're being trolled by .... * the POTUS *
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
stevage 2y ago
>But because Trump did it, some Americans find this inherently problematic, It's not "because Trump did it". It's very unusual for geographic place names to be renamed at the whim of a single politician. It's extremely unusual for it to happen by fiat, so quickly. It's absolutely unheard of for a feature so large, and shared by more than one country, to be renamed in this way in the modern era.
- xp84 2y ago
  Wasn’t it Obama who renamed Mt. McKinley by fiat after 100 years, also for political reasons? This is no more important than that decision. Both Presidents had the authority. And while the Gulf itself is shared, there’s no reason both countries automatically call it the same thing. After all, the name actually used by Mexico is in Spanish anyway.
  - ytpete 2y ago
    Besides already being the original indigenous name for the mountain, "Denali" was also the name already in use by many locals and outdoor enthusiasts elsewhere. It was already the name officially used by the Alaska state government, and the state had formally requested the federal government do that same way back in the 70s. Accepting that request is far from changing the name "by fiat" – especially not to a newly invented name that no one was using or asking for. And that's before you even get into the difference between choosing a name out of respect for an original indigenous name vs. an intentionally jingoistic and self-aggrandizing name chosen to represent a new area of imperial possessiveness.
    - xp84 2y ago
      > intentionally jingoistic and self-aggrandizing name chosen to represent a new area of imperial possessiveness. It already had such a name, just one probably named by Mexico if I had to guess.
      - ytpete 2y ago
        Considering the word "Mexico" comes from the indigenous people of the region while "America" was a name brought by European colonists... I'm not sure you can really say both of those share the same air of imperial possessiveness.
oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
> each country clearly has the right to call international water bodies whatever they want Sure, but the USA has no more right than any other country to enforce its name on the rest of us, and no right at all to enforce a name for space it does not own.

walthamstow 2y ago

I get "Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)" on a Japanese connection. This stuff is obviously pointless and silly but it's nothing new. I'm sure Google Maps shows UK and French users different names for what I would call the English Channel.

kenhwang 2y ago
I see Gulf of America when it's zoomed in, but Gulf of Mexico when zoomed very out or very very in.
- stevage 2y ago
  Probably a caching issue
- llacb47 2y ago
  Likely cached tiles either on your end or Google's servers
- nope96 2y ago
  I see "Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)" when zoomed in all the way. "Gulf of America" when zoomed out.
chrsw 2y ago
Like another poster on this topic said, it's not pointless or silly. It's a demonstration of power.
- CharlesW 2y ago
  As well as an example of the "flood the zone" strategy designed to overwhelm and distract.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Hizonner 2y ago
  You misspelled "demonstration of small dick energy".

amazingamazing 2y ago

Gulf of America is a more inclusive name anyway since both USA and Mexico are part of North America, but since it's Trump everyone hates it. People can't really even articulate what's wrong with it in a vacuum without mentioning Trump. I don't even like Trump, but this "renaming" is neutral at worst, inclusive at best.

darknavi 2y ago
I'm not sure what "(North) America" means and what Trump thinks "America" means are the same thing.
- amazingamazing 2y ago
  why does it matter?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    It’s annoying. It was annoying when San Francisco school boards were doing it. It’s annoying when Trump does it. The illiberal left and right need to just create their own maps and dictionaries and leave the rest of us alone.
  - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
    Motive matters, this principle is long-established in most Western countries legislatures.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
beart 2y ago
The counter reaction is strong as well. I don't agree with this so I must just hate Trump, right? It's a feedback loop in both directions. Frankly I just think it's a waste of time and energy. I'm referring both to the original action, as well as the continuing ramp up of divisiveness.

yosito 2y ago

The real news here is that GNIS has been updated with the name. It doesn't seem that Google made an independent decision to change the name. Resistance to this change would really have to happen at the government level, not the tech level. Which really seems to be the point that's being made with this whole ordeal. It's a symbolic move to demonstrate to everyone that what they say goes and that the system isn't resisting their power.

ryandrake 2y ago
Where does it end though? If he decides tomorrow to start calling Canada "Beaverland," will all our maps change again?
- amazingamazing 2y ago
  why waste time and energy discussing silly things he might do when he is literally doing silly things now, for real?
  - Nevermark 2y ago
    > Where does it end though? If he decides tomorrow to start calling Canada "Beaverland," will all our maps change again? reply > why waste time and energy discussing silly things he might do when he is literally doing silly things now, for real? The example used was making a larger point than, oh no, "Canada -> Beaverstan", for laughs. The point is: What line would be too far for industry to resist presidential renaming by fiat. A kind of power with known risks. Renaming by fiat has a name, "Newspeak", a term coined in the not very silly book, 1984, by George Orwell. Trump has a history of doing lots of "silly" things just to see if he can. It is a low risk way for him to pre-test, or pre-expand, any barriers to more serious expressions of his power. Such as renaming things in a way that undermines or alters the impact of laws.
    - amazingamazing 2y ago
      Again, there’s no need for hypotheticals. Trump is doing plenty of crazy stuff in reality. And this is a representative democracy, if the representative does those things, so be it. If we don’t like, we get another to revert.

tonymet 2y ago

So many points of interest have been renamed in the past 20 years. I'm expecting the same level of endorsement for those renamings to carry over to this one.

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
Tell us a few, let's see what we think.

egypturnash 2y ago

Well that's Google Maps deleted off my phone then.

jasperr1 2y ago
Seems a little harsh. What app do you plan on switching to?
- nickthegreek 2y ago
  Personally, I’ve been using Apple Maps for over 8 years without issue. I just checked the gulf, it’s of mexico and I am in the US.
  - ryandvm 2y ago
    I have bad news for you if you think Apple is not going to fall in line.
    - nickthegreek 2y ago
      Well they haven't. Neither has MapQuest, and weirdly Waze..
      - npteljes 2y ago
        Give it time. If they still haven't renamed after a year, that's something. But even then, maybe just some lag.
        nickthegreek 2y ago
        Indeed. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-11/apple-is-renaming-gulf-of-mexico-to-gulf-of-america-on-maps-app https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-11/apple-is-...
- egypturnash 2y ago

racl101 2y ago

It shows "Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)" in Canada (aka The soon-to-be 51st State). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

jeffbee 2y ago
Considering the relative populations of states, shouldn't Canada be at least 10-20 states?
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  Approximately the same population as the existing state of California. I suspect giving Canadians 40 senators and proportionally more representatives by splitting it up would be a political concern for annexation-hawks.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    Giving it two senators, and as many representatives as California, would be of massive concern to annexation-hawks - to the point that they have to not be thinking to even consider it.
    - AlotOfReading 2y ago
      Didn't think about this, but a new state would lead to a reduction in representatives for high population states like California because of the cap on the house of representatives. California would go from 52 -> 46 reps if my math is right, which is also how many the megastate of Canada would also get.
- quantified 2y ago
  They have 10 provinces and 3 territories. I think that would map to 10 states. Yes it's ridiculous to give that many people 2 senators. The House redistricting will be super interesting.
  - 2y ago

losvedir 2y ago

I was surprised to learn when living in Bahrain that what I knew of as the "Persian Gulf", is there known as the "Arabian Gulf". Only tangentially relevant, but kind of interesting.

nonrandomstring 2y ago

I think the gulf of America is in Washington right now.

gazook89 2y ago
I was wanting a graphic t shirt with a skull in be style of a topographic map, with the empty space between the ears labeled as the Gulf of America. Alas, I have art skills and didn’t want to fuss with midjourney for a result half way there only to realize I wasn’t ever goiing to pull the trigger.
tonymet 2y ago
Washingtonians prefer we use Washington for the state and DC for the Federal District of Columbia.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  Are Washingtonians from the state or the district?
  - tonymet 2y ago
    Washingtonians are from Washington .

cratermoon 2y ago

Whatever you do, don't right click on the map and select "Report a data problem".

bee_rider 2y ago

I mean this is all dumb chest thumping. But, doesn’t it make us look smaller to name the gulf after us? When it was the Gulf of Mexico, it was named from our point of view. It was the gulf, among our many gulfs, that we share with Mexico. Now, by the same logic it is named from their point of view.

sparrish 2y ago
It's not named after 'us'. All those in America (South, North, Central) are called Americans. I spent several years in Paraguay where I met a lot of South Americans. Mexicans are North Americans and the 'Gulf of America' is more inclusive considering 1/2 of the land mass touching it belongs to the US.
- danorama 2y ago
  I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that "inclusion" wasn't Trump's intent here.
- gritspartan 2y ago
  Except, no part of Central nor South America touches the Gulf of Mexico. The only three countries which coasts on the Gulf are the US, Mexico, and Cuba. All of these are in North America, and I'm pretty the latter two are not going to go along with the idea.
dingaling 2y ago
> it was named from our point of view. Actually it was named from the perspective of Spanish explorers. Originally Gulf of New Spain but by 1569 had become Gulf of Mexico.

Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago

I think every country should call it "Gulf of country", in France they direct all map providers to call it the Gulf of France, in Australia, they call it the Gulf of Australia, and so on.

ryandvm 2y ago
Honestly, this would be the funniest possible outcome.
Sparyjerry 2y ago
That's actually hilarious, but America also stands for North America and South America. Gulf of The United States doesn't quite ring the same.
- oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
  I saw a "Gulf of the Americas" suggestion which makes the second-most sense, after not changing it at all.
  - dannyw 2y ago
    It’s absolutely pointless, but Gulf of the Americas almost has a nice bonding tone.
- lolinder 2y ago
  This is a nice interpretation of it, and maybe if this sticks we can reinterpret it that way, but this is coming from the guy who coined MAGA, the title of the order is "RESTORING NAMES THAT HONOR AMERICAN GREATNESS", and the text makes it very clear that it's about the US: > It is in the national interest to promote the extraordinary heritage of our Nation and ensure future generations of American citizens celebrate the legacy of our American heroes. ... in recognition of this flourishing economic resource and its critical importance to our Nation’s economy and its people, I am directing that it officially be renamed the Gulf of America.

diggernet 2y ago

One detail I've not seen mentioned in these discussions is that the EO specifically identifies "the U.S. Continental Shelf area bounded on the northeast, north, and northwest by the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida and extending to the seaward boundary with Mexico and Cuba". I'm not sure exactly what that looks like on a map, but it's clearly focused on US coastal waters. (Which kind of makes sense, because GNIS has no naming authority outside of US borders.) But it also makes the implementation by Google Maps wrong, since a large part (a majority, I think) of the gulf is still the Gulf of Mexico. It seems like the area should be drawn as two adjacent gulfs, the Gulf of America to the North and East, and the Gulf of Mexico to the South and West. (Not debating the merits, just pondering mapping details.)

AlotOfReading 2y ago
This depends on whether it's a regional name applied to the body of water or a specific name applied to the territorial waters within the greater region encompassed by the original name. Google has chosen to regard it as a regional name applied to the entire body rather than as a specific name for territorial waters implied by the EO. They do this for other regionalized names like "South China Sea" (e.g. "East Sea" in Vietnam).

Hizonner 2y ago

It's showing up in parentheses outside of the US. How about if we all compromise on Gulf of Donald Trump Can your-favorite-letters-here?

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

Related: Just searched Google Maps for Mt. Denali, Alaska only for it to return results for Mount McKinley immediately. Note I'm not really sure if that's anything to do with an executive order or that it was Alaskans wanting it called Denali while many elsewhere in the country incl at the Federal level called it McKinley.

TheJoeMan 2y ago
I think if you're bragging to your buddies you summited Denali it has a much more air of mystery than "I climbed McKinley".

swah 2y ago

I really enjoyed the "joke" the other day where some standup guy said that we have the tech now to make everyone happy: just show this part on Google Maps as China to this set of people and Taiwan to this other set of people etc etc

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

sethd 2y ago

Discussion of this issue on OpenStreetMap forum: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/gulf-of-america-gulf-of-mexico/124571 https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/gulf-of-america-gulf-o...

doener 2y ago

Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42859580 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42859580

octocop 2y ago

In Sweden it shows both. "Mexikanska Golfen(Amerikanska Golfen)"

Xunjin 2y ago

A question, does the executive order (if it was actually signed by the President) have the "law power" to actually oblige Google Maps to make this change? If not, is this correct following USA law? Also is this matter being questioned in superior Justice instances?

paulcole 2y ago
> If not, is this correct following USA law? Why wouldn’t it be? What’s stopping them from calling it Gulf of Google if they want to? Trump isn’t forcing Google to do anything. They use a database for their place names and use what is in that database.
- xattt 2y ago
  The assumption is there’s a global body that registers place names and regional borders that Google would vet against.
  - hiatus 2y ago
    There is not. See the whole Taiwan thing.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
silverquiet 2y ago
Growing up I was told of the fable of "The Emperor's New Clothes" on occasion. I always found it ridiculous, but in the last decade it has been quite relevant. As a kid, I thought it was about the ridiculousness of the Emperor, but I've come around to the understanding that it's about how power creates its own reality.
- Xunjin 2y ago
  Thank you, that makes a lot of sense.
2y ago

LimeLimestone 2y ago

What's next? Will New Mexico be called New America? /s

acc_297 2y ago

Someone's already made a chrome extension to search+replace "Gulf of America" to "Gulf of Mexico" in online text I don't think it works for google maps place titles but no doubt someone will fix that. It's a new level of public-but-divided space when we all start running client side software to reinforce our world view. I'm certainly not criticizing that chrome extension I think that is funny, but it's also something to think on.

NicuCalcea 2y ago
It's not a new level at all, these extensions have existed since shortly after extensions started existing. A few examples: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/trump-dog/bdhcfpbgaifaaechanicakocebiniinl https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/trump-dog/bdhcfpbga... https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/tralalump/epclgaeglajobpbkkcejdeblbhojegag https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/tralalump/epclgaegl... https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/cloud-to-butt-plus/apmlngnhgbnjpajelfkmabhkfapgnoai https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/cloud-to-butt-plus/...

insane_dreamer 2y ago

Just refreshed Apple Maps on my phone, and it also shows Gulf of America where over the weekend it was still Gulf of Mexico.

bdangubic 2y ago
refresh on Canada too, it’ll shown North American 51st State :)
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  My phone says "Canada (52nd State)", while Greenland is marked "(51st State)" -- not sure who decided the order there. Gaza just says "(US Territory)" -- too poor to warrant statehood.