“Any reference to the ‘Gulf of America’ initiative on your Google Maps platform must be exclusively limited to the marine area under US jurisdiction,” the letter read. “Any extension beyond that zone exceeds the authority of any national government or private entity..."
So the issue is not the renaming per se, but that waters previously known collectively among all countries bordering it as the Gulf of Mexico have been wholly renamed.
The argument seems sound: America has no authority over waters beyond its territories, and its territories end some miles off the US coast. Beyond that border it is only logical for a company to refer to a body of water by the name more commonly accepted internationally.
This is not how mapping works internationally. There is less agreement than I think you imagine. To give a simple non-political example, how many oceans are there and what are they named?
There are myriad authorities that maintain the official database of geographic names for use within their jurisdiction. Conflicts between these various databases are common. No one has the authority, either in theory or practice, to determine what a "correct" map looks like. To accommodate this, all mapping companies maintain a huge number of deltas for each authority.
There isn't One True Map. It is really a vast number of separate maps maintained in parallel, one for each jurisdiction that claims the authority to dictate what a map should look like. To the extent possible, companies try to minimize the number of parallel maps they must maintain. Geographic boundaries, even uncontested ones, give a hint of why this is necessary. An international border is commonly shared by several administrative jurisdictions (national and then subdivisions of each nation). If one of those several jurisdictions does a high-precision survey that moves some inconsequential line a few centimeters, what gives them the authority to edit that border for every other jurisdiction that shares it? Managing these inconsistencies is one of the basic challenges of making quasi-authoritative maps.
Mexico does not have an argument here. Everyone in every country uses an opinionated map that reflects a self-interested narrative that therefore is in conflict with maps used elsewhere. This isn't a surprise or shocking, things have always worked this way. The US, like Mexico, absolutely has the authority to make any map they want. No one is required to use either of those maps and in fact many countries reject both the American and Mexican versions of the map.
In spanish, french, chinese? I think gulf of mexico is pretty standard for many languages, but it can happen that a language/nationality will cause certain areas by names with different meanings
That would apply equally well to other bodies of water with disputed names, which have been stylized as e.g. Persian Gulf (Arabian Gulf) and Sea of Japan (East Sea) on Google Maps for like, 15 years?
well, there sure was a lot in the countries involved!! they have all lobbied and argued extensively in favor of their selected name for many years, and their people do seem to feel strongly about these matters.
I don't have a final answer for all situations, but certainly if you look at those things on the map right now they read one name, then the other in parentheses. The "Gulf of America" has no such parenthetical. That seems like an acceptable compromise that Google has already adopted in other disputes. I suspect it will rile the current administration, however, if they do so here, and so they have not.
edit: oh, I find Google has already addressed this, and it is only in the US that it is just gulf of america:
This certainly seems sound for whatever portion of the gulf is Mexico's territory, but, does Mexico have jurisdiction over the 'middle part'? My non-expert understanding is that the US owns the portion of the gulf that's within 200 nautical miles of US land and Mexico owns anything within 200 nautical miles of Mexican land, leaving a bit in the center that's international waters. Maybe there's a treaty that gives most of it to Mexico somehow?
The solution where we cut it in half on the map and give it two names seems silly, since it is a single geographic feature. `Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)` (and the reverse when connecting from the US) seems like a reasonable middle-ground. It doesn't seem that Google Maps generally indicates who controls which ocean territory.
> The argument seems sound: America has no authority over waters beyond its territories, and its territories end some miles off the US coast. Beyond that border it is only logical for a company to refer to a body of water by the name more commonly accepted internationally.
While i hate this gulf of america bullshit, i'm not sure i agree this argument is so sound. I don't think there is any rule of international law requiring countries to refer to other country's territory by the preferred name of the state that has soverignty over that territory. Maybe if you take it as an implicit threat of annexation or claim of soverignty, that would be a violation of the prohibition of acquiring territory by force, but that seems a bit of a stretch at the present juncture. [Ianal].
Basically i think there is a big difference between saying someone is acting illogically and someone is acting illegally.
A better argument is that the president doesn’t determine the common, accepted name of bodies of water in English. Even American English. And especially ones outside US borders.
Be that as it may, from the mexico lawsuit stand point, is there any rule of law being violated by refering to something by the wrong name? It doesn't really matter if the president lacks the authority to change the de jure name or what the de facto name is, if google has no obligation to use the correct names for things.
I do also, separately, think the lawsuit seems odd. But I guess when confronted with absurdity… file absurd lawsuits? I dunno, speaking of maps, we’re in the part that reads “here be dragons”.
What governing body enforces the naming of that body of water?
I'm fairly certain anyone can call it whatever they want.
If Mexico has a law that it needs to be named the golfo de Mexico then display that to requests coming from Mexico. Otherwise how can Mexico force Americans to call anything anything?
isn't cartography and GIS crowdsourced to some degree? Why aren't y'all using OSM?
"Mexico" is not some homogeneous monolith of amorphous identity and yes the history of "New Mexico" and Mexican citizens/nationals residing in the E.E.U.U. and Indigenous groups such as the Tohono O'Odham or Yaquis' governance and voices count. To varying degrees and some are sovereign tribes or communities; some self-identify in ways that may surprise us
There's a feature in Maricopa County that is popular for hiking and nature, and now we carefully refer to the hill as "Piestewa Peak" to honor a fallen warrior who served her/my/our country to defend liberty, and I guess the freedom to rename stuff for posterity or prestige.
Ok, totally not the point ... but a big chunk of what is now the US was Mexico, and the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo (and to a lesser extent the Gadsden Purchase) officially handed it over -- so I think Mexico may actually have formally agreed that we're not North Mexico.
The difference is, of course, that the Gulf of Mexico is about as related to Mexico as New Mexico is to Mexico. That is to say, it's not theirs at all. Furthermore, "America" is a general geographic region and not technically exclusive to the United States. We are both in North America.
Mexico is trying to compel Google's US-based systems to display a preferred name to US users. This is exactly the same issue AP was protesting, in reverse, with the kicker that Mexico has no sovereignty over the US. So, when Mexico does it no outrage? That's just reserved for the US president?
> This is exactly the same issue AP was protesting, in reverse, with the kicker that Mexico has no sovereignty over the US.
You somehow got it entirely backwards. The Trump Administration decided it was a good idea to rebrand random geographical areas with nationalistic names and force that change upon the world. The world woke up to see this "freedom fries" nonsense forced upon them through the likes of Google Maps. In the very least, Google must not change the experience for anyone else accessing their service outside of the US.
Ask yourself this: why would anyone in the world be subjected to these whimsical nationalistic banana republic renaming stunts?
This is a common problem. In Korea, the Sea of Japan is the "East Sea". In Iran the Persian Gulf is the "Arabian Sea." Do we waste our time worrying how maps are labeled for consumers in Iran or Korea?
What's different here is an objecting nation (Mexico) is interfering with names and expression that are used in another country, namely the US.
You think Gulf of Mexico is a better name. You're entitled to you opinion, particularly if you live in the US. But what if you lived in Mexico and the US government sued you for using your preferred name in Mexico? And you think that I have it backwards?
Wikipedia says that's "an ongoing federal antitrust case brought by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) against Google LLC on January 24, 2023 [that] accuses Google of illegally monopolizing the advertising technology (adtech) market in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890." How does this answer your parent's question?
Theoretically, if you can make Trump happy and show you are on his side, Trump could make that case disappear.
Or, more realistically, Trump will still screw them over anyway, scorpion & frog style.
Large companies are bending over backwards to curry favor with Trump (see Meta settling and paying millions on a case they were winning and almost certainly would win).
“why would anyone in the world be subjected to these whimsical nationalistic banana republic renaming stunts?”
Maybe because everyone in the world is subjected to these whimsical nationalistic banana republic renaming stunts.
How do you think the names of geographical areas came about in the first place? Did everyone in the world get a vote on the official Geographical Naming Commission? Oh wait. What should we call this official commission? What language should be the official language for the naming commission?
The overblown outrage over this issue is absolutely silly.
The harassment of AP and Reuters should offend anyone that has relied on their reporting before. On most topics they are the only publications I can trust to publish fast and impartial news these days.
Why exactly should the harassment of AP and Reuters be important in a way that doesn’t intersect with literally every other attack on the US people from its new administration?
Literally every media outlet in existence pulls news down the wire from AP and Reuters before they apply their shitty editorial stance to it.
Bumfuck News Arizona does not have the scoop on Trump handing Ukraine over to Putin straight from Odessa. But a bunch of mouth breathers in Texas will think he stood his ground there.
Specifically because this is a harassment campaign intended to discredit America's highest-quality reporting until only the Rupert Murdoch media is left.
Reuters is top-shelf and neutral, but they are UK-based.
AP departed from journalistic neutrality long ago.[1] They actually are among the worst journalistic offenders because of poor standards compounded by less visibility on their pervasive left-leaning bias.
unyttigfjelltol departed from journalistic neutrality long ago. They actually are among the worst journalistic offenders because of hyperbolic overstatement and sleight of hand misuse of references that "support" their stance.
The relevant quote from [1] is milquetoast:
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation.
AP is rated HIGH in factual content with a bias one stop to the left of "LEAST BIASED".
Of all the biases out there this is not particularly troubling particularly as most (I would hope) are aware of it.
Your ad homenim is unwarranted. Here are some other references illustrating it is widely known AP has serious problems with bias and journalistic standards.
"The AP has taken flak for a shift toward subjectivity in its news reporting, not just from media critics, but from small-town communities like the one in Lufkin, Texas. Readers of the Lufkin Daily News decried a July 4 AP story about Trump’s Mt. Rushmore speech for exhibiting bias, prompting an apology from the local paper’s editor. " [1]
"Honest public discourse depends on calling things by their right names. But much like the current trend at many mainstream publications and broadcast outlets, where journalists think their job is now to fight Trump and conservatives rather than just report the facts and let the people decide, the AP Stylebook has become an eager recruit for left-wing Democratic activism and the anti-Trump “resistance.”"[2]
"The Associated Press has morphed into a Berkeley-style left-wing rag. The key difference is that The Associated Press plays to a global audience of millions."[3]
My objective description of your overuse of hyperbole was accurate.
Your comeback is that Allsides has stated that "The AP Sometimes Mixes Subjective Analysis Into News Articles".
Correct .. sometimes.
That's a far position from "worst journalistic offenders because of poor standards compounded by less visibility on their pervasive left-leaning bias" which is unquestionably hyperbolic rhetoric and intuitively obvious as such to the meanest intellect.
Your ball. I'm off, have fun.
( In good faith and with best intentions do look up "ad hominem" .. I attacked the content and framing of your comment and mocked it, I did not and have yet to attack your person by, say, suggesting you're a cocaine user or somehow otherwise of low character )
The NYP is important and they report facts. I don't identify with the comedian's critique. I agree that it is odd that the elite news organizations have turned so biased and subjective so as to elevate the other half of the media landscape, and not the FOX News types. NYP is one of those organization diligently reporting real, fact-based stories in human terms. That's my personal experience anyway.
I've been infuriated over and over by AP presenting nonsense as the news, and perhaps I hold them to a higher standard based on they way they position themselves. More than once I've had the reaction that their high-profile reporting was flagrantly wrong. I've never had that reaction to a NYP article, and I seek out the NYP when reports in other outlets are vague or insufficient.
There is no big mystery about it. Whatever values the liberal American left hold dear are also applied internationally. Since Modi is a religious, conservative and nationalist leader, obviously he becomes their enemy and gets a long, endless chain of news articles condemning him.
Not sure whether their stance was truly value based or you know - whether they were "funded" to have their opinions.
Okay, so you are using the right-wing pejorative sense of “liberal” for “everyone who isn't a fascist”, since in none of the other uses do “liberal American” and ”left” occupy the same space.
Yawn, the usual ridiculous fascist/nazi claims. Congratulations sir! You have been successful in your "Strawman Argument".
Basically, the AP is currently a global propaganda organization regardless of whatever labels or position you choose to assume of me. They have developed a bad reputation in nations outside the US/EU too.
There's a stereotype of male motorists who never stop to ask directions when they may be lost.
Now is that rugged male individualism, a DIY spirit, or something else?
Passersby and strangers have the right of free speech, and what incentives would compel a stranger to give accurate directions the way the motorist wants to go? What also would inform the conversation with a stranger so that there is understanding and trust, assuming that the stranger doesn't intend to misdirect or beguile the motorist? Hop in car and tag along for 10 miles?
The stereotype may also derive from a man's instinct to protect others. Such as a spouse and children in the car, or his coworkers, or just a taxi driver's fare. The man has taken responsibility at the wheel, and control and liability rests on him to complete the journey. A man's sense of fatherhood and spousal love--"jealousy" is a fierce force of nature that ultimately can only be tempered or quelled by feminine influence.
Now take this defective "car analogy" and apply it to the US Gov, Justin Trudeau, or Mexico as you scope out and figure out what's really going on in 2025.
I watched the video about AP and the the WH Press Secretary, and its as dramatic as it looks: AP chose to stick to their standards, and the WH chose to stick to the fact that they can be selective on who they invite to the press conferences and who travels with the president.
In the end, the loss will be on the AP and others who decide to go this path, and most importantly to their readers.
The only press allowed will be the one that acquiesces to the new administration and does not antagonize it. And this will be a major loss for press in general.
I wish AP would not be so stubborn o unconsequential issues such as the Gulf of America. No one really cares, its a political stunt and nothing more.
I did! That's how my eyeballs fell upon these words:
> The only press allowed will be the one that acquiesces to the new administration and does not antagonize it. And this will be a major loss for press in general.
> I wish AP would not be so stubborn o unconsequential issues such as the Gulf of America. No one really cares, its a political stunt and nothing more.
They were punished for not toeing the line. You think they should have toed the line so they can keep playing the game. Like I said, everyone knows backing down when they try to force you to carry a narrative is how you prevent erosion of free press. I guess you would rather they wait for them to declare the official policy is the earth is flat and defect after that? That probably isn't consequential enough either. I have to wonder where you draw the line.
It's not okay to deplatform the AP over this, period.
And how is that "erosion of the freedom of the press"? They can still write about anything they want, they're just not invited to the WH anymore. And I think this is a loss for their readers or clients, not for Trump - he has one less not so friendly outlet that needs dealing with.
AP could write something like "... in the Gulf of America (worldwide known as the Gulf of Mexico)..." and be done with it. I am not defending what the WH is doing, I just feel it is silly to be stuck up on something this small. In politics you need to play politics, logic and common sense don't have a place.
Using the style guide as a reason to exclude some press on other hand is not a political stunt at all.
It is mechanism to influence and control around the messaging of executive actions in the mainstream media[1]
Organizations not complying would be excluded under another pretext sooner or later.
AP is a non-profit and can take this stance, most other news media are for-profit and their first fiduciary responsibility is to their shareholders not their subscribers or employees, journalistic and ethical standards.
That means none of them can afford to be excluded from the most happening news stories and access to the more valuable (I.e. clicks) personality in the world of this decade .
[1] this is part of job of any PR department(public and private) and not a critique The government PR wing (press secretary, communications director etc) traditionally also needed to be transparent, accessible , unbiased and accountable.
It seems US government no longer sees this as a core function of press relations
My point is that AP and other agencies need to be able to adapt to the situation on the ground. Othwerise we will get what you mention: the WH can influence the media by having only press that reports what and how its told. This is the real danger.
I rather AP stick to its principles rather than loose integrity, AP has a core function in elections in calling races I would prefer that no one doubts their integrity and legitimacy
Okay, but Google has no legal obligation to anyone here, right? They're just a private company, and they can put whatever they please on their map. They could call it Gulf of Cuba, or Gulf of Poopy Pants, and no one would actually have any legal standing to sue, would they?
I figure since it's a country threatening a company, any threats would be by definition legal, since the country can just change the laws to match the threat
Wait, that's not at all true. A country could change the laws, but it has to actually do that. Otherwise a country would automatically win every single lawsuit it brought forward, which is not the case.
Part of the very reason we even have laws is to limit the power of what the government can do, and protect private entities from government overreach.
It is noise. The whole thing is noise. I've never heard it referred to as the "Gulf of America" before this stupid substanceless news cycle. At first glance I don't suppose it really makes any difference if the entire continent is referred to by the name "America", but changing a name as a nod to a certain group of people is exactly the kind of empty noise I'd expect in the year of our Lord 2025. Time to tune back out.
It is to distract everyone from more significant acts of corruption. Exactly like 2017-2021 but this time with a planning committee to take advantage of the distractions.
There's the Frontline interview with Steve Bannon where he discusses the plan to hit the "opposition party" that is the media with so much nonsense because they're so dumb and lazy they can only focus on one thing. Then push the agenda while they're focused on the nonsense. Now, you have Jefferies saying they're not going to swing at every pitch and wait for the right pitch. It's all just so ridiculous it's hard to believe this is real life
> TBH, that parenthetical label outside jurisdiction or common usage seems like noise.
More than noise, it feels they are force-feeding the world this "freedom fries" nonsense in a way that normalizes this behavior.
If the US wants to go ahead with this pathetic policy of renaming things as a way to stake a claim, limit this to their geo bounds. Don't let that brand of stupidity leak elsewhere.
With the giant continental shelves it’s not as if it’s separate from the nations bordering it. So what the US calls it is relevant, as is what Mexico calls it, and Cuba, though that might be a side note. As a USian I strongly believe we should be calling it Gulf of Mexico FWIW.
This legal threat is interesting because in Mexico you should see the name of the gulf unchanged, and only in the US is it exclusively the Gulf of America. So I’m not sure how that would work in court.
But the reality is map providers have to be prepared to conform to local rules and standards all the time.
Political threats over names on Google Maps are nothing new. Google has dealt with this issue over and over worldwide. Sometimes the solution is to show different names to people in different countries. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what eventually happens here.
> Political threats over names on Google Maps are nothing new. Google has dealt with this issue over and over worldwide.
Yes, that's why it started showing "Gulf of America".
> Sometimes the solution is to show different names to people in different countries.
The "gulf of America" nonsense is nonsense originating and limited to the US. Allowing this stupidity to leak outside of the US is a problem no one signed up for.
Regardless of your opinion on this stupid naming thing with the Gulf of America/Mexico, if a lawsuit succeeds in any way it would be terrible for all international map websites. South Korea would sue over the Sea of Japan/East Sea and there would be trouble with the Persian/Arabian Gulf as well. Countries would sue over border disputes. The localization that Google Maps does allows it to be accessed and used in a variety of places. I think that’s worth protecting.
Google displays different names for contested places in different polities. Of course it should show Mexico its preferred "Gulf of Mexico." It can still show US users the current US name.
That's essentially what they did (and IIRC still do) with Crimea and other annexed territories. That's not Google's first rodeo for sure, although it can be more difficult given that their headquarters is in the US.
Mexico’s claim is that the US doesn’t have claim to the entire body of water. It should technically show Gulf of America at the top where the US border extends to and also show Gulf of Mexico below that.
That said the whole thing is childish and stupid and a distraction from the massive grift being perpetrated on the American people right now.
The concern would be that it normalizes expansionist rhetoric, which is very concerning for the countries on the borders of USA. Setting the information space up for future events is a serious thing in geopolitics. It is not just a distraction but can (when combined with many other things) have a real affect down the line.
Throwing out multiple crazy things per day to saturate the media and opposition so they have trouble resisting or reporting on everything was an explicitly stated plan by members of the administration, before the election. Sometimes you can’t come up with anything even hypothetically substantive, I guess, so you rename something that zero people wanted to be renamed.
At the end of the day sadly the winners will dictate these things. If not, the territories in United States would all have Native American names (and some do, like Massachusetts).
Do you think the Native Americans the Europeans first encountered were the ones there continuously from the time the Americas were populated? Or did their groups at one point or another conquer other groups on the land? Europeans were already on the continent when a major migration (not forced by Europeans) led huge groups from the great lakes area down to the American southwest, displacing native groups that had been there for at least hundreds of years.
Native Americans used winner takes all in the same manner that Europeans did. What's the big deal?
They didn't explicitly saying it, but the implication is that some new system came into play when they Europeans arrived, otherwise why bring them up at all? I was pointing out that it was always winner take all.
Respectfully, i don't think that sentiment is present in the original comment.
If anything, the comment is saying the opposite. Winners write history and get to name stuff. Often names just stick even after territory changes hands, but its undoubtedly true that a lot of place names in usa & canada are in english because britian "won". If france won more things would have french names. If spain won spanish. Undoubtedly if various indigenous groups "won" than a lot more things would have indigenous names. This doesn't make indigenous people special, it makes them the same as any other nation-state type group.
The kind of path US has taken, it might be sensible for Mexico to impose a fine on Google maps. We will see an increasing hostility towards American companies in other countries.
This is probably an unpopular opinion - but if you're going to rename the Gulf of Mexico, Gulf of the Americas is a much better name than Gulf of America.
Mexico is a country, so the new name is less nationalistic. I've actually met people from Latin America who call themselves "American" because they are in either North or South America. Besides, nobody owns the Gulf. If the US wanted to, it could easily take over the Gulf of America officially, and also annex Mexico as well.
Isn't it fairly common to have different things named differently depending on where you're at in the world?
I'm assuming that Google didn't change it for how it shows in Mexico, so why do they care so much about what another country calls it? It's stupid for it to be renamed, don't get me wrong, but the outrage about it seems like it's because it came from Trump.
In Canada, I see the "new" name along with Gulf of Mexico. Seems like a weird take. Every sovereign island should start naming it a different way, I'd like to see if Google would display 27 names for the same Gulf...
Edit: I'm wrong here. They are doing it based on IP address, not domain for some reason. https://www.google.de/maps will show the parenthetical only when accessing it via a non-US IP and will show just "Gulf of America" when on a US IP even on that domain.
--- original ---
I don't know why they decided to to do that in Canada. In the UK (for example), it only says "Gulf of America", same with Germany.
The Don should rename the Bering Strait to "Strait of America", then build the TrumpStream pipeline between Siberia and Alaska and resell liquefied Russian gas to the EU at four times the price.
I don't speak Spanish, but I'm pretty sure Mexicans don't call it "The Gulf of Mexico"... Probably something along the lines of "El gulfo de Mexico". Can we just localize the translations?
Wow this is dumb. Do these people realize that the same places have different names in different languages? Don't Mexicans speak Spanish? Can't it still be called 'Gulf of Mexico' in Spanish and 'Gulf of America' in English?
For example, Germany is called Deutschland in German... Yet you don't see Germans demanding that we rename Germany to Dutchland to make it more consistent... They don't have jurisdiction over the English language.
I was also confused when Turkey made everyone rename it to Türkiye... I understand that they don't want to be confused for the Turkey bird but that 'u' letter with 2 dots doesn't even exist in English. WTF?
You look at Google maps and all the countries use English letters except one; Türkiye. WTF? Seems like English language is being appropriated.
More than 0$, so definitely more than they're willing to lose in a Mexican court case that costs money and reputation, especially given the local courts are unlikely to rule in their favour.
“Any reference to the ‘Gulf of America’ initiative on your Google Maps platform must be exclusively limited to the marine area under US jurisdiction,” the letter read. “Any extension beyond that zone exceeds the authority of any national government or private entity..."
So the issue is not the renaming per se, but that waters previously known collectively among all countries bordering it as the Gulf of Mexico have been wholly renamed.
The argument seems sound: America has no authority over waters beyond its territories, and its territories end some miles off the US coast. Beyond that border it is only logical for a company to refer to a body of water by the name more commonly accepted internationally.
reply