But it's categorically different. Removing pictures from CVs so that corps are unable to discriminate based on that image still maintains the concept of "employee". Doesn't removing borders effectively remove the concept of "citizen/national"?
The subject of a CV is the human, but the subject of a map is the place. Removal of borders removes the concept of a citizen, but maps are concerned with the concept of an area. Nothing of value is lost. In more practical terms, I have not encountered maps that explicitly mention the concept of a citizen, other than by drawing nation-state borders, or those that are concerned with immigration (but for those, it's a relevant concept).
First, if you remove detail about a person from a CV, that person still has those characteristics.
It's not clear what effect "removing borders from maps" has - if you are suggesting having no borders as in your original comment, or having them, but just removing them from maps.
In the latter case it would be massively inconvenient to not know where borders are, if there are visa issues. Plus, there isn't really an equivalence to "illegally discriminating based on seeing the border". The appearance of a single, otherwise anon individual, versus international agreement on where the borders are seem to be v. different things.
As such, interpreting as the former; "maps are concerned with the concept of an area" - they are as concerned with navigation as anything else, so include roads, and borders plus border stops. "I have not encountered maps that explicitly mention the concept of a citizen" no, but they usually name the country - I mention citizen from the perspective on how it impacts travel; presumably removing borders means there are no territories, and thus no countries; but a country is as much a collection of people (citizens) so both diminish, unless you maintain a territory-less concept of citizenship.
Not clear to me "Nothing of value is lost" - tell me how this would impact, say, Israel? or anywhere bordering Russia. Or are you only taking from the about specific cherry-picked locales?
> "illegally discriminating based on seeing the border"
The problem is closer to: "the presence of pictures on CVs is detrimental to someone due to outside bias", "the presence of borders on maps is detrimental to Yandex due to outside bias". Not quite the same mechanism, but similar in spirit.
> they are as concerned with navigation as anything else
All maps are concerned with an area, some with navigation. A map of the Moon is still interesting to some non-astronauts.
I concede, if you use a map for navigation, a concept of a national border is still relevant. But in other cases, given the variety of possible geographical data, it rarely is.
