[yosito]

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]

Where does it end though? If he decides tomorrow to start calling Canada "Beaverland," will all our maps change again?

[SequoiaHope]

Many people are currently desperately trying to figure out where it will all end, with possible outcomes much worse than renaming places on maps.

[mlinhares]

Look at all the third world countries in latin america that have been through a coup, that's where it ends.

[ben_w]

Indeed. While I was surprised by the name, I quickly noticed that this was a vibes-based reaction.

I'm British by birth, I grew up with news stories about the IRA, and the second-largest city in Northern Ireland is either "Derry" or "Londonderry" depending on if you're a Republican* or a Unionist.

The English Channel, if you're French, is La Manche.

The country I currently live in is Saksa in Finish, Tyskland in Danish, Allemagne in French, Niemcy in Polish, or Germany in English, none of which is close to the endonym of Deutschland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Germany_Name_European_Lan...

* i.e. "not a monarchist" — this has nothing to do with the US political party.

[mathieuh]

It's only Londonderry to a minority of loyalists who aren't actually even from the place. Everyone else calls it Derry, even the loyalists in Derry.

I think it's actually a rule in BBC articles that the first mention has to be "Londonderry" and thereafter "Derry".

[ben_w]

Thanks; that's somewhat… ironic, I think is the correct word?

[computerthings]

And if Germany was "renamed" by another country, it would signify a shift of something. Just like the difference you mentioned are based on massively important historical events.

[robertlagrant]

> If he decides tomorrow to start calling Canada "Beaverland," will all our maps change again?

The guy got enough votes without needing to promise to do this as well.

[amazingamazing]

why waste time and energy discussing silly things he might do when he is literally doing silly things now, for real?

[Nevermark]

> 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]

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.

[Nevermark]

Again. The specific hypothetical wasn’t the point.

It is what is called an“illustrative” or “hypothetical exemplar”. Ignore the specific example, focus on the point being made:

What limit is there to Trump taking things further? Because Trump has a track record of taking things further.

It is not a randomly improbable premature neurotic conjecture actually about Canada or “Beaverland”. Those are stand-ins for a larger point.

—

Also, a democracy is supposed to decentralize power. The more decentralized, the more each citizen has equal power.

But the US Constitution, with all its checks and balances, managed not to limit the power of political parties.

So the US system degenerates into only two viable national parties, with highly centralized power within each. Only two nationally viable candidates, neither chosen by an actual democratic process.

Just one more candidate, chosen by the powerful, than an autocracy.

We could call this “Minimal Viable Democracy”, as any less democratic would not be democratic at all.

Without experience with a better system, most US citizens are in a Stockholm situation. They talk about their “great” system because at one time it was a big improvement. But 250 years later it is just the flawed system they are stuck in. Better to keep calling it “great”, no matter how many re-centralizing-of-power dysfunctions accumulate without resolution, than get too depressed.

[mandeepj]

> Also, a democracy is supposed to decentralize power. The more decentralized, the more each citizen has equal power.

There’s no way you can guarantee that! India have everything to decentralise power, but still ended up currently as an autocratic state

[asyx]

If I remember correctly the US system doesn’t really take parties into consideration because parties were an afterthought and not really supposed to be a thing.

[Gud]

If you don’t like it, there are more options than sitting around for four years hoping another bought and paid for candidate in the two party state will be better.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”.

If you don’t wish to commit violence, there are other effective methods to enact change, although in the US the chances appear small.

Personally I believe in direct democracy.

[tlavoie]

Well, the "Gulf of America" nonsense is also shown here, in brackets after "Gulf of Mexico." So it seems like they're not content with just keeping it to the US as originally stated.

[jsnell]

As far as I can tell, there was no such original statement. There was, however, a statement saying the opposite:

https://x.com/NewsFromGoogle/status/1884012872768053467

> Also longstanding practice: When official names vary between countries, Maps users see their official local name. Everyone in the rest of the world sees both names. That applies here too.

[tlavoie]

Whoops, I stand corrected. I thought I had read it elsewhere (news, I assume) that most countries would not see the change. Looking back... sigh.

[xiphias2]

Probably not, as polls show that it was his second worst decision in his voter group.

He is polling quite well with his voters, this was more just a power play.

[486sx33]

A great idea! I rather like beaver-land it sounds like such a wonderful place.

In all seriousness this started in trumps first term when he insisted on changing NAFTA to USMCA while canada calls it CUSMA and Mexico calls it T-MEC … so it’s the no one agrees on anything agreement

[JumpCrisscross]

> canada calls it CUSMA and Mexico calls it T-MEC

Huh, Tratado entre México, Estados Unidos y Canadá, TIL!

(Honestly, kind of genius.)

[ben_w]

I had that reaction when I first saw the French name for NATO and thought it was an accidental mirror image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NATO_OTAN_landscape_logo....

("Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique nord")

[JumpCrisscross]

> Where does it end

Same way every naming fight does. Each side requires its own labels.

[mrastro]

Maybe Trump's plan to make Canada part of the United States, just rename Canada to the "United States" in the GNIS database and they appear part of the same country (at least within the real "United States" borders, Google implements names based on a Geo fence for each country).

[hulitu]

What's wrong with Beaverland ? /s

[oneeyedpigeon]

> It doesn't seem that Google made an independent decision to change the name.

Isn't GNIS a US-only thing? I am not in the US, yet I am seeing "Gulf of America" in brackets after the correct name. Doesn't that suggest the decision is a bit less "independent" than you're implying?

[martius]

When a border or name is disputed, this is shown with the "given names" in the countries on each side of the dispute, and with both names (one in brackets) everywhere else.

[francisofascii]

I was under the impression the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) defines the naming of international waters.

[Dudelander]

Like I said, loyalty test.

[ljsprague]

Good.

[npteljes]

Which part of this happening do you consider desirable, and why?

[ljsprague]

I'm unhappy with and afraid of "the system". I'm glad to see that the elected president can still effect change in it, no matter how inconsequential or petty.

[npteljes]

Interesting perspective, thank you.