this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2025
6 points (66.7% liked)
Overseas News
569 readers
3 users here now
A place for Australians and friends to share news from the other countries. Like all communities here, we discuss topics from the Australian perspective.
If you're looking for a global /c/worldnews instead, search for the many options on federated instances.
Rules
- Follow the aussie.zone rules
- We are not a generic World News clone. News must be relevant to Australians and our region. Obvious disregard will earn an warning and then a ban if continued. (If an article isn't from an Oceanian news outlet, and it doesn’t mention Australia, then it’s probably off-topic)
- Leave seppocentrism at the door. If you don't know what that means, you're not ready to post here yet.
- Avoid editorialising headlines. Opinions go in the comments, not the post.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So their announcement seems to be saying they'll follow what the national government officially calls the feature:
And, yeah. What is the alternative policy from Google that we're proposing? That Google should be sovereign in itself, declare they'll name it whatever seems right to Google, and not defer to the government appointed names for things? Based on what, exactly?
I want Google subject to official government policy, and not to ignore it. I want Google Maps to follow the official name when, for example, Ayer's Rock is now officially called Uluru.
This specific government policy (that the Gulf of Mexico be changed to the "Gulf of America") is stupid and jingoistic. But is the answer to that, we want corporations empowered to ignore government policy?
If the government of the day orders that Uluru is now called "Aussie Stone", and Google announces they'll update maps to follow the change of official name? My objection is not that Google follows the official name; it's that the government of the day is wrong and needs to be ousted.
Yeah I sorta agree. I think following government policy rather than making their own decision is a good way to avoid them being responsible for any really bad political blunders.
But at the same time, yeah, it would be kinda nice if they could take a stand. Not on any seriously complicated issues like Kashmir, but when it's just a jingoistic fascist doing jingoistic nationalism? Yeah, it'd be good if they put their foot down and said "no, that's BS, and we're not going to enable it". For the same reason I don't like Facebook hiding behind "it's free speech" when excusing the (entirely technically legal) hate speech they allow on their platform.