3 ms·

What would be a valid basis for relabeling a shared body of water for US users? Would it be based on popular usage? The procedure by which it changed? Maybe we

What would be a valid basis for relabeling a shared body of water for US users? Would it be based on popular usage? The procedure by which it changed? Maybe we distinguish between bicameralism and presentment, an executive order, and the discretion of a bureaucrat. Or do we normally take the government database at its word but treat this as a sui generis "this guy is being an asshole" exception? Not trying to interrogate you specifically. I am pondering these questions myself. I don't like that the name changed but I'm hard pressed to think of a good neutral policy that doesn't also sweep up a bunch of (far stickier) renaming situations around the world.

tavavex 1mo ago
I'll elaborate on my opinion. I think that asking for a single universal rule that seemingly impartially decides how to display certain names shows that I conveyed what I meant too indirectly. Asking for a universal rule on map labeling is like asking someone to design a universally applicable test that can be taken by both a human and a gorilla. Universal rules will never work or be impartial because you can't assume everyone is a well-intentioned actor. The real solution here is for Google to decide on their values. What they think is right, why they think that, and who they back because of it. Only that would help them distinguish between genuine conflicts and a temper tantrum, both domestically and internationally. Of course, doing this would be extremely controversial and as a corporation they would never go for it anyway. What it would do is show their position to the world openly and let people judge them on that merit and decide if they really want to work with them. Applying universal rules that 'accidentally' happen to help a certain side is just as much of a political and ideological choice as what I've suggested above, it's just a lot more wishy-washy and coated in a pretense of rationality.

tavavex 1mo ago

I'll elaborate on my opinion. I think that asking for a single universal rule that seemingly impartially decides how to display certain names shows that I conveyed what I meant too indirectly. Asking for a universal rule on map labeling is like asking someone to design a universally applicable test that can be taken by both a human and a gorilla. Universal rules will never work or be impartial because you can't assume everyone is a well-intentioned actor. The real solution here is for Google to decide on their values. What they think is right, why they think that, and who they back because of it. Only that would help them distinguish between genuine conflicts and a temper tantrum, both domestically and internationally. Of course, doing this would be extremely controversial and as a corporation they would never go for it anyway. What it would do is show their position to the world openly and let people judge them on that merit and decide if they really want to work with them. Applying universal rules that 'accidentally' happen to help a certain side is just as much of a political and ideological choice as what I've suggested above, it's just a lot more wishy-washy and coated in a pretense of rationality.