Why does Google Maps keep following executive orders?

If you’re blindly following GPS navigation and driving your car into a lake, a la Michael Scott, don’t be surprised if the lake’s name has changed. Like a quiet U.S. ship passing in the night, Google changed Lake Ontario to “Lake America.” I’m talking all about that later in this newsletter. Should we care? Is it a distraction? Why not both?

For now, as expected, I got a LOT of feedback about gun legislation from you all. Once again, LNI readers impressed me with their diversity of opinions, nuance and (very) thorough answers. I also enjoyed those of you who voiced your exhaustion over the topic and opted to send a pet photo instead. Your pets are all officially in consideration for Pet of the Week. Keep checking in on our homepage to see if your furry critter made it.

Here are a few excerpts from your emails. I took the time to read all of them. So, even if you aren’t featured, please know that I did read yours and appreciate you!

From my perspective, the 2nd Amendment seems to indicate that individual citizens should be empowered to resist tyranny … it does not seem to be legal to possess a tank, a bomb drone, or any form of artillery or flak … How are we supposed to demonstrate firm disagreement with immigration enforcement? We can't even stop data centers at a town hall.

The idea of the Second Amendment being outdated came up quite a bit. I thought this reader did a good job of updating the argument to a relevant point of contention (data centers).

But still, we had plenty of people across the political spectrum express their support of the Second Amendment.

I'm in the camp that the Second Amendment is the great equalizer against tyranny … the press is a massive, powerful institution, and the fear of exposure keeps politicians in check. But the Second Amendment is always there in the background. It's the ultimate insurance policy for when "shit gets wild".

This was the first time I had ever seen someone argue that the First and Second Amendments almost work in tandem. I’d never seen them paired together quite like this.

One reader, self-described as “college-educated and work a white-collar job, from West Virginia, strongly progressive in spite of state trends,” provided a few corrections and explanations of the “gun show loophole” I had spoken about, specifically talking about how it came about via the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

The law was specifically written to include this provision because kitchen-table gun sales were and still continue to be a negligible source of firearms that end up being used in crime … The "loophole" in this context looks a lot more like a well thought out exception to the law itself which was intended for people who legally want to sell firearms in larger volumes.

I think this is a really important point. While some argue (and will argue a few quotes down) that there should be an overhaul of gun control legislation, the “gun show loophole” began with the best of intentions. This reader gave a whole lot more context that I may discuss in a future video. I also just want to call out how thoughtful and respectful their email was, given how contentious the subject is.

Of course, many people had plenty to say about their distaste for the Second Amendment:

I cannot understand how a country where this sort of thing happened all the time has taken so little action on the matter of gun control. My mind-boggling confusion continues when I learn that the right to bear arms IS ENSHRINED IN THE GODDAMN SECOND AMENDMENT.

This came from a Kiwi reader who pointed out that while New Zealand’s buyback program only got rid of a fraction of guns, they still did something and they’ve had far fewer mass shootings.

One person — a fellow journalist! — spoke about going from a more radical approach (total ban and gun buybacks) to something more measured after realizing that they see eye to eye with most gun owners about background checks and mental health evaluations.

I personally would take it a bit further and treat gun ownership like cars. Before obtaining a license to own a gun, prospective owners should be required to take basic gun safety classes complete with a written exam at the end. 

The general consensus echoed polls from the last several years: most people are in favor of more comprehensive gun control. This reader from Montana spoke about his family, who ranged from “old-school Montana Democrats” to “Reagan Republicans.”

I’ve noticed that even some like my family and other hunters who have named children after their favorite manufacturers are in support of gun control, which has been obscured by our recent trend of polarized politics.

One of my absolute favorite emails came from a reader in Oklahoma. I think this one just spoke to me as someone who grew up in the Midwest and also attended school for a year in Tulsa. Everyone around here knows someone like Papa. He sounds like basically every adult leader in my Boy Scout troop.

I grew up in a small town in Oklahoma with a big holler behind my Papa's house. He had himself a Lifetime hunting license and never missed a season, even when the doctors told him not to. As much as he loved it, he had rules too, not just for hunting, but for guns too. You'd go out with Papa for years before you got to hold a rifle in there and years more before you got to shoot anything. He taught you everything NOT to do first. 

Whenever I hear people talk about guns and gun control, I think about my Papa.

I do feel it’s fair for me to say that no matter where you fall on gun control legislation, we should all be more like Papa.

Through the end of high school and my entire college career — especially as a break from stressful assignments and exams — I used to watch the USA show Psych. Every episode is a perfect mixture of a whodunnit mystery and offbeat humor. Shawn and Gus could do no wrong (even though they break the law almost every episode and it’s sort of just swept under the rug).

I liked it so much that I was almost afraid to go back to it. Would it age well? Was it only funny because I was immature and hadn’t refined my tastes yet?

The answer is yes and yes (I am still immature). After my wife passed out and said “don’t watch The Sopranos without me,” I revisited the show right around where I left off, watching episode one of season six. Back in 2013, it was pretty difficult to stream the show. I may or may not have relied on less legal websites to watch it. But now I am a responsible adult paying for sites with names like ‘Peacock,’ and the entire Psych library is available to me.

Anyway, I am just confirming that the show holds up. It never takes itself too seriously and is extremely rewatchable. It’s kind of wild that a little cable channel had this and Monk on the air at the same time. Makes me wonder if Suits is any good. Should I be watching Suits? Don’t answer that. We’re still watching The Sopranos 15 minutes at a time and it went off the air in 2007.

I grew up riding my bike to a 7-Eleven in Shawnee, Kansas. We would dig quarters out of my dad’s coin jar — usually 50 cents and a nickel would cover a Slurpee. I just grew another gray hair as I wrote that.

That 7-Eleven is now closed down, but just behind it, as if to say “we know you’re grown up now, Dave,” a very cool and sophisticated spot called McLain’s Bakery sprouted. For my East Coast readers, this is the Tatte of Kansas City but less pretentious and with better prices.

I did not ride my bike to this McLain’s on Friday (I don’t live in Shawnee). But I did visit another location in Kansas City to once again partake in their delicious sandwiches, baked goods and coffee. Every time, it’s a 10/10 experience. Good food for kids, too!

Also on Friday, the barista recognized me and said “aren’t you that guy that makes silly little news TikToks?” and I said, yes and asked if I could quote her. She happily obliged. What great service!

We’ve got a few partnerships in the works that you’ll see in the coming weeks. This includes more videos with our long-time partner Harry’s, as well as a series of videos on Social Security with AARP. I’m really proud of our work in making sure these videos not only fall in line with our own ethics and standards but also are enjoyable to watch. Most importantly of all, you should actually learn something in these videos, like anything else we produce.

That’s our main goal when we accept money from these companies. It’s not just about keeping the lights on. We want you to know that we’re carefully choosing partners that don’t get in the way of our reporting.

Our own standards (at the bottom of this email) specifically outline that we do not take money from any political parties or PACs. Trust me when I say that it would be very easy to do so. As you can imagine, people attempt to reach out frequently either directly or via agents. Our answer every time is a flat “no.” Saying no can be hard, but taking the money would cost us too much. We have to be able to critique everyone. We also need to be able to say when a controversial political figure is doing something correctly, or at least, is not in the wrong on a certain issue.

This is not a critique of creators who do take political money. In fact, I applaud those who take it and clearly disclose this to their audience. That’s not what we want to do at Local News International, but I recognize that’s a path others choose to take. Unfortunately, some creators take that money and also don’t disclose it. Right now, they’re learning in real time how that can hurt their credibility, via this New York Times story.

Remember after January 6th when virtually every major tech company turned their back on lame-duck President Trump? Twitter and Meta (briefly) banned him from their social media platforms and Google took some steps to combat misinformation around voter fraud.

That was all performative bullshit, of course. Republicans like Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio did yet another about-face and were back in lockstep with Trump by the 2024 elections, once it became clear that Republican voters had returned to Trump. He’s been reinstated on every platform. I’m not surprised by Graham and Rubio, but I cannot help but feel a little incredulous about Google caving to Trump’s executive orders renaming bodies of water.

Last year, Google changed the name of the Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America, which I alluded to in Friday’s video. Then Saturday night, they changed Lake Ontario to “Lake America.” If you are one of our many readers who don’t live in the U.S. (thanks for reading!), this does not affect your view of Google Maps. However, if you click on Lake Ontario, you will probably see “Lake America” in parentheses.

Google’s reasoning for changing this is that they’re following the U.S. Geographic Names Information System. To me, this is a slippery slope and a complete cop-out. Is Google saying that, as a company, they are unable to make exceptions? Like when a name-change comes from an executive order, which can be challenged in court and doesn’t even hold up internationally?

When Trump signed an order renaming the Department of Defense to the Department of War, Google didn’t adjust the name on Google Maps.

So, clearly they understand that there is some nuance to these executive orders, including when it comes to what a body of water is.

It seems to me this is yet another capitulation to the man in the Oval Office, who can pull the levers of power, affecting their business for better or for worse. If Trump were yet again a lame duck on his way out, it’s hard to imagine Google making these changes to Google Maps. When the president, his Sharpie-riddled maps and his political party eventually do leave the Oval Office, it’s safe to bet that they will switch the gulf and lake back quietly in the night.

So, does it all matter? I can’t really decide. I made a point in Friday’s video of showing all of the far more consequential things happening in the news. There’s no doubt that the legal immigrants being jailed by ICE and the long-forgotten Epstein Files should have far more impact on the news. But there is something to be said about tech companies’ willingness to bend the knee for the trivial middle school whims of the president. If they’re taking the time to entertain silly name changes like this, what else will they entertain?

Here’s a video explaining how OneDrive works. Unless you are sitting next to LNI co-founder Micah Gelman, who somehow is able to navigate the platform, this is a pretty good summary: