I suspect the point is that decisions are made whenever a map is constructed, and those decisions can produce wildly different views of the world.
While some of those decisions are in some sense objective (e.g. the equator being 0 degrees latitude), others are purely arbitrary or historical (e.g. the definition of 0 degrees longitude). If that meridian had a different definition, the results would be quite different. Then there are decisions made by a particular map maker. As others have noted, small town and research stations at far northern and southern latitudes have disproportionate representation simply because the parameters (10 degrees of arc in latitude and longitude) divide a smaller area of the globe into the same number of bins as the much larger area of the globe at equatorial latitudes.
This map is far more interesting in terms of what it tells us about intrinsic biases in mapping than in terms of what it tells us about the world.
