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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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?

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.

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.

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)