Curate, connect, and discover
Is how the Marauder's map is treated really surprising from the series that minimizes trauma, glorifies bullying, portrays abused children as inherently evil and sees nothing wrong with the implications of a society where love potions are so routine that people sell them by the store full to literal children and tell "back in my day" stories about them like sexual assault is a fucking joke?
No, it doesn't surprise me at all that the invasiveness of the map is never addressed.
It's very telling that even though her general excuse for all marauder antics is that they were just mischievous kids, but then she has characters who were adults then do nothing and then she has characters who are now adults--adults she wants us to Believe are reasonable and fair--who know what they did and still defend it and treat it like it's perfectly harmless and a "just good fun."
It infuriates me that people always seem to consider the Marauder's Map as something "cool" and boyish. To me, it is the ultimate tool to bully and abuse - a violation of all privacy and safety, the ultimate object of control for the abusers. I cannot see many things that would be more dangerous than this inside a boarding school, and I cannot even begin to imagine how Snape and other students must have suffered from it, unable to hide from those who could attempt murder or sexually assault them without being expelled. I don't care if this takes place in a magical world - everyone has a right not to be restlessly tracked. The fact the matter is never addressed within the books, and the Marauders seem to have received no real punishment (in a normal and proper school, this would get students expelled) when this clearly is psychological harassment and stalking, is another example of how unsafe Hogwarts is for all students that do not have the privilege to belong to Gryffindor, or come from a wealthy background, thus being at the mercy of bullies like the Marauders. And the fact the narrative doesn't point out this fact is highly disturbing - on the contrary, the map is always talked about in a positive way:
"This little beauty's taught us more than all the teachers in this school."
It is still an object of pride for Lupin, who gives it to Harry at the end of his third year. We know for a fact he never understood, or wanted to understand, the seriousness of his actions - the fact is this time, his views on the map aren't contradicted by anything in the narrative (in the contrary to the bullying of Snape, seen for what it was by Harry).
"While on the run in looking for Horcruxes, Harry would often look at the map to see what Ginny Weasley, his love interest, was doing, which would hint that the map works from any location."
We know that Harry and Ginny's relationship is a positive one with shared love in a particular context; but still such activity should never be romantized. None of the partner should have the power to stalk their loved one: it gives a disturbing idea of "entitlement" to the other.
"Eventually, James Sirius Potter probably stole the map from his father's desk."
Finally, the map is again presented as an object of enjoyment which provides mere fun - according to JK the map certainly made its way back to Hogwarts, in the hands of a James Sirius nonetheless (I mean, this is a symbol as a whole). I think that shows how she never understood the seriousness of what this object implies - because the use of the map is clearly, and definitely, written and talked about as positive and even funny.
Thus it is also talked about as something entirely positive within the fandom, just as bullying and trauma are minimized by many people - and to accept the idea that stalking is okay, another tool for "pranks", is worrying. The map is, on the contrary, a symbol of what the Marauders had and looked for during their school years: absolute power.
For whatever reason, I found myself thinking about the theme of heritage/inheritance in Harry Potter and how it's, like, catastrophically broken in the text.
The villains in Harry Potter are almost unanimously racist and classist - they believe they are entitled to behave however they wish and live at the top of the social hierarchy because they were born to rich, pureblooded families, and anyone who wasn't is filth to be exploited and/or purged. That's the philosophy of evil in the book - "I deserve everything because I was born in the right family with the right genes and the right social standing. My heritage makes me better than you."
All the injustice and evil in the books is rooted in this belief in entitlement by way of heritage. People are abused and die because of it. Inherited wealth and status, and more specifically the unfair priveleges it affords, is the root of evil in Harry Potter.
So you'd think the protagonist would present some sort of strong contrast to it, right? That they'd be born poor, or mixed race, etc. But no, Harry is from a rich pureblood family, with the vast wealth and social status that affords.
Well, that's OK, we can still make a contrast. Maybe Harry differs in how he acts with wealth - perhaps, realizing his inheritance is an unfair privilege, he gives it away? Maybe he works to give the underprivileged their due? Again, no, not really. He sometimes buys stuff for his poor friend Ron, and defends his "mudblood" friend Hermione from racist criticism, but he sees no reason to change the system that dehumanizes them in the first place, and by the end of the tale is pleased to exploit his privilege for his own gain.
The whole house elf subplot illustrates this failing well - we have a race of slaves who are frequently shown to suffer from abuse. One of them, the property of a rich racist, risks his life to save Harry, and Harry frees him in return. Oh, nice, finally fighting the system, eh? Except no, not really - while Harry frees that specific slave, he's content to leave the others in bondage, especially when he inherits a slave of his own.
The contrast Harry Potter puts up against its rich, racist, privileged villains is "Hey, being rich and higher in the hierarchy is awesome and just, but you can't be a dick about it." That slaves belong in the dirt, but masters should be polite while putting them in their place.
Voldemort posits himself as the heir of Slytherin - claiming his inheritance is vital to his rise to power and villainy. And Harry opposes him by... also claiming inheritance from a rich old dead guy. Hell, the final battle comes down to who rightfully inherits a specific rare Wand!
The fact that Harry and Voldemort have shit in common is not a flaw on its own - villains and heroes are often foils for each other. But in this specific tale, the relationship the villain has with inherited power is so central to the conflict that the hero having the exact same relationship is a major failing. The story is just shy of saying "Voldemort was basically right, but he shouldn't have been rude about it." It's bad from both a moral and a writing skill perspective.
(The only inheritance Harry fully rejects is parseltongue, i.e. the ability to talk to snakes, which was accidentally given to him by Voldemort, and could be argued to be a symbol of trauma rather than inherited wealth. Also I'm still salty about how that series turned on snakes so cruelly, but that's a whole other rant.)