[ashaikh]

It's amazing how political maps are. I wonder what method Google uses to determine borders. Disputed borders and states must be a nightmare to deal with.

I remember reading a while back that if two states have a border dispute, Google rendered the border differently based on your IP address. I wonder if that is still going on here.

[r00fus]

I'm amazed it's surprising to you at all - borders by definition, are inherently political.

Google's issue is that it aims to be the single source of truth on something inherently contested... no way around this issue.

[poke111]

Windows took out the time zone map feature because of this: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20030822-00/?p=...

[elevensies]

If Google's responsibility is to the vanity of governments, then it is very political.

If Google's responsibility is to accurately represent the situation on the ground to their users, then it may not be easy but it isn't all that political.

[xg15]

Given that borders are entirely human-made constructs, the only "accurate", non-political representation I can imagine would be to display all possible borders at the same time.

As that isn't what happens (and would also be impractical if you actually wanted to use the map) I think you can say that they do have to be political.

[elevensies]

What I'm trying to say is, if you are going to visit a certain location, the territory belongs to whoever controls it -- and that is who you need to reckon with.

China (PRC) says that Taiwan is a province of China, but they don't control it. If you show up at the Taipei airport with a entry visa from the PRC, you will find that out.

A similar but more extreme example, Google Maps says Raqqa is part of Syria, but due to the war that isn't exactly accurate at the moment.

Determining which organization rightfully owns which territory is political.

Determining which organization actually controls which territory isn't political though maybe not any easier.

[dragonwriter]

Both are political questions. "Political power" and "effectively exerting control of people, including in a particular territory" are tightly-bound concepts.

But they are different political questions, and it is important not to confuse the two.

[elevensies]

It is a political question for the organization that wants to maintain power in a certain area. Assad's ability to control Raqqa is a political question. Google's ability to identify who is in control of Raqqa, much less so.

If Google negotiates the border location with the governments, according to the governments political needs, that is Google's choice -- Google can do this to try to maximally satisfy the governments. This is politically complicated.

If Google wants to maximally satisfy the practical needs of the people who are actually going to the locations on the map -- all they need to do is identify the sovereign power. Exerting control is politically complicated, but this is not what Google needs to do, Google only needs to identify.