[treden]

This really seems like the Right Way(tm) to approach this because it acknowledges that the google isn't attempting to be an authoritative source for what's really a subjective truth, and it presents the "most true" version of reality based on where you're coming from. And has the added benefit, one imagines, of being even more infuriating to those trying to push their One True Truth down everyone else's throats.

[adrianmonk]

> google isn't attempting to be an authoritative source for what's really a subjective truth

There is an objective truth here, though, that could be shown (if it were allowed). You could show it as disputed. That the dispute exists is an objective truth. The very fact that different states require you to display it differently is proof of that.

> presents the "most true" version of reality based on where you're coming from

Normally I shy away from this terminology, but let's call it what it is: propaganda. Tech companies (Google, Apple) don't custom-tailor their maps because they want to. They do it because the states use leverage to force them into it. And the states do it to promote the idea that the disputed territory is theirs.

[saulrh]

The question isn't whether or not there's a dispute. The question is whether or not there's a meaningful dispute, and whoever's showing the map still has to make that determination. For example, I still hear people calling it "the war of northern aggression" and calling for the South to rise again. Do we mark everything south of the Mason-Dixon line as being disputed by successionists? No, obviously - that claim is ridiculous. But that claim exists, and so you must decide whether or not it is "legitimate". It is exactly the same process as deciding how to show Crimea or Ukraine or dozens of other international borders of varying dubiousness.

[chc]

I can see how your point applies in the case of "the war of northern aggression," but not here. If you're showing different things to different people on different sides of the dispute, obviously you've decided there is a meaningful dispute.

[deanCommie]

I don't think that's quite right.

"Legitimacy" is a subjective moral argument in and of itself, and is subjective, and likely to wind up on the wrong side of history. Hiter's annexaction of sudetenland was generally discussed through the lens of legitimacy in pretty mainstream conversations. Obviously history looks at his actions through another lens.

If Russia stops at Crimea, it might be an interesting footnote or a hard pub quiz question 30 years from now. If Putin sets his sights next on Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania, and the West lets him have it, it's going to be remembered much differently. By the way I'm not ominously promising future-Hitler. I don't think Putin wants the west, or any more than that, and I don't think any genocide is in the future.

But I do fear that he wants to rebuild as much of the former soviet block as possible, and I do think the EU won't stop him, which will itself be the final nail in the coffin of its legitimacy, and eventual dissolution.

[fiiv]

> Tech companies (Google, Apple) don't custom-tailor their maps because they want to. They do it because the states use leverage to force them into it. And the states do it to promote the idea that the disputed territory is theirs.

So what? Google wants people to use their map software. By showing variations of the map depending on what the official stance of the regional government is, they are ensuring that their map software is available in that region and fits the context of that country.

There is a Russian narrative for Crimea being theirs. There is a Ukrainian narrative for Crimea being theirs. It's not Google's place to decide between them, it's their place to create a map people can find things on.

It does not matter what you, I or Sundar Pichai believe is the truth of whom Crimea should belong to. Their product is a map and it's available in Russia, Ukraine and Crimea. In fact, by presenting all the credible alternatives in this case (for Russia's side, they currently administrate the region and for Ukraine's, it was very recently their territory), they are being apolitical about it.

[koheripbal]

Take that argument even further, and a LOT more areas would suddenly start showing up on Google Maps as disputed.

Would Native Americans start petitioning Google to alter maps of Arizona?

[gsich]

It's not objective though. Countries have arbitrary borders. So if people think those are wrong, who am I to say that they are wrong?

So if you take Crimea, for both Russia and Ukraine it's undisputed. Both think it's theirs. For other countries not, making it no longer objective.

[chc]

You're not saying they're wrong. You're saying that two parties whose opinions you recognize have different opinions on the matter. That's literally what a dispute is.

[gsich]

It is. But not for them. There is no objectivity in country borders.

Apple could show both, but why take a side and care? This would lead to more problems then they care. (China, India, Pakistan are next in line)

[4bpp]

What's subjective there, though? If you go to Crimea and commit a crime (heh), you will be caught by Russian police and hauled before a Russian court. If you start in a point on Crimea and walk towards Kiev or vice versa, you will be stopped by military who will check if you are allowed to enter Ukraine or Russia respectively. We conclude that there is an international border between Crimea and Ukraine, and Crimea is under Russian control.

Maps are usually supposed to represent aspects of reality, in particular those relevant to moving around and understanding places (e.g. whether someone will stop and check your passport, or which country's laws you should consult in a particular location to minimise your chances of getting thrown in a dungeon). I get that many people get fuzzy feelings from looking at pictures that look like maps but instead represent a hypothetical reality they would prefer to be in, but there must be a better term for those than "maps".

[int_19h]

It's not that simple. If you go to Crimea and commit a crime without getting arrested, and then travel to Ukraine and they find out, they will arrest you and try you under Ukrainian law.

And if you try to cross the border from Crimea to Ukraine, the Ukrainian side will not ask you if you "want to enter Ukraine". They consider Crimea to be Ukrainian, so they'll treat you as somebody who is already on Ukrainian territory, just passing through an internal checkpoint. Which means that you must have had entered Ukraine legally before, and then traveled from there to Crimea, and back. If you try to enter Crimea from Russia, and then from there to Ukraine, then as far as Ukraine is concerned, you have committed an illegal entry at the moment you entered Crimea without going through a legitimate border checkpoint - so they'll just arrest you for that.

Furthermore, if you try to enter Ukraine at any other border crossing, but they have evidence that you have previously entered Crimea from Russia, they will also treat that as a past illegal entry.

[Bendingo]

> you have committed an illegal entry at the moment you entered Crimea without going through a legitimate border checkpoint - so they'll just arrest you for that

This is true.

A few years ago I flew from Moscow to Simferopol (Crimea) and was advised that to not visit Ukraine in the future, for risk of arrest at the border. I'm not sure how Ukrainian border authorities would know of my visit to Crimea, since there is no record of it in my Australian passport, but I would not want to take the risk.

[vogre]

There is nothing that Ukraine can do to prevent you from visiting Crimea, except punishing you later if they know somehow. So they have no real power or influence over peninsula.

[alwayseasy]

Actually the better term you're looking for what you want is "local intelligence" or "guide".

Don't limit the the definition and use of (navigational) maps by minimizing the "fuzzy feelings" created by (political) maps. Your hypothetical doesn't work, who goes to some contested territory and then wonder where they'll end up in jail or when they'll fall on a military checkpoint? Most of these areas are not ideal for foreign tourists. If you want a map to navigate immediately around Yemen, Syria, Morocco, northern India, Aceh, South Sudan etc you're in trouble.

Entire countries with nationalistic pride and a populist/authoritarian leader like China, Russia, Pakistan, India, Morocco... fight tooth and nails to have maps that conform to their world-representation. Because they can suppress speech and justify violence against populations usually in these territories or manufacture causes for military confrontations. That's usually what political maps are for and they matter if you're a tech company.

[wutbrodo]

None of this is inconsistent with a disputed border though: Russia would describe it as firmly Russian and Ukraine as occupied Ukrainian territory.

[naz]

It's also exactly what Apple is doing in this situation

> The region is now displayed as Russian territory on Apple Maps and Weather, when viewed from inside Russia.

[mzs]

No it adds ", Crimea, Russia" to the end of "Simferopol" in Weather.app but does not on the iPhone in US I just tried here.

[anotheryou]

for me in germany it just shows no country at all

[keymone]

Yes, I also noted this. The question is what does it show for people in Ukraine?

[saalweachter]

Are you including Crimea when you ask that question?

[keymone]

of course, Crimea is Ukraine

[fluder]

No country, just city. Tried from Ukraine

[keymone]

do you have an iphone? did it make you change app store recently? what options were available? just asking because yesterday a friend was forced to pick russian app store in ukraine.

[notatoad]

"true" or "not true" is probably the wrong way to frame this. There's no reason Google or Apple should want to be involved in deciding the truth, but they do to be a source of useful information.

Knowing whether or not you're going to be crossing a border is useful information when you're physically close to that border. When you're viewing the same map from 1000km away, the political status of the border is probably more important to you than whether or not you're going to be stopped by border guards.

[anotheryou]

Well if so it's still just the side-effect of not loosing out on selling their services in the target country.

Maybe you are right and it's the best way, I however also see how everyone is deeper in their own bubble with their own reality. Something that can easily cause a very skewed post-fact world view.

[loceng]

It makes Google and Apple targets or any centralized information services for capture to then try to control the narrative globally.

[anotheryou]

If they chose just one "truth", wouldn't they be targeted even harder?

[loceng]

I'm not sure I follow? If a centralized service only presented "one truth" then it would alienate other markets which would then cause those markets to be lost. Imagine Russia and China capture Google and Apple, they can certainly agree to the history they want written and presented to the world; how quickly or likely or able is the rest of the world to stop funnelling money to the bad actors in control of these organizations and nations - we're quite lousy, unmotivated, incompetent at it currently.

[excursionist]

> it presents the "most true" version of reality based on where you're coming from.

The fact of which country controls a territory, which country's laws apply there, which is the local currency, etc. does not change based on your politics. What google is doing is just PR/politics - they are just taking what they see as the least risky path for their business. It's not useful to say Crimea is part of Ukraine because for all practical purposes it is not. If China decided to crush Hong Kong protests with military and establish full control - would it make sense to pretend it is an independent state if Western nations decided to declare it so for political purposes?

[laretluval]

An alternative would be to present the version of borders which is most likely to be relevant for a traveler in terms of border crossings, visa requirements, etc.

[davchana]

Yes, agree, whatever is the situation on ground. If X holds the area, show X as owner.

[sukilot]

A TLD isn't where you are viewing from, it is what you are viewing. GeoIP is where you are viewing from.

The difference matters for things like GDPR.