In the past, I would have thought of maps as being absolute as far as borders and uniform names. However, after the readings and discussions this week, I have reflected on all that I consumed, and it is just not so, especially when it comes to web-based mapping.
The interpretation of lines between countries, particularly during times of conflict, skirmishes, and all-out war, has been known to shift, though the country in power over that particular region is not always clear. Hence, Microsoft defers to the International Court of Justice, the UN, or other entities regarding borders. Google Maps often displays a gray dashed line for the border to display in areas of dispute. While it is understandable for the fluidity of borderlines, which can shift daily during active times of conflict, perhaps the most surprising aspect is the taking of sides by sources such as Google when it comes to border disputes. The influence of this hit full force in 2010 when Google moved control of the border between Costa Rica and Nicaragua from one country to the other, and the troops used this as justification for movement.
Pertaining to cultural narratives, it is interesting to note that not only do borders tend to shift based on where the website viewer is located, but the names of seas or lands also change depending on the same criteria. This speaks to the influence of algorithms and the “truth” being subjective depending on the politics at play, including the financial backers’ objectives and preferences, or political party pressure that might be felt.
While in prior generations printed maps were the main source of viewing, with the layout and design, printing process, and distribution causing delays to reach the general public, it is the modern-day web-based processing of maps that can allow for almost instant modifications. With this quick turnaround, however, comes the downfall of fewer restrictions on what constitutes a valid source for change and the ever-changing definition of uninfluential “truth”.