The author of the article bends over backwards to make an incredibly weak and muddled argument for racism, before using a term that many people, including peopl

The author of the article bends over backwards to make an incredibly weak and muddled argument for racism, before using a term that many people, including people who are the demographic focus of the term, find racist in any context. It's an absolutely terrible article. The filter is racist because the term being blocked is the result of an underlying bias in the data that has racist origins: the fetishization of Asian women. (That block may have a real impact on people's lives. A young child searching for 'Asian history'; or a teen searching for 'Asian takeout' won't be able to find what they're looking for, which could impact Asians directly. I don't know specifically, and a real journalist would have found some real life examples, tried to get data to measure impact, etc.) I don't agree with the author that this is 'insulting' just because it happened; or that Apple (or anyone) need necessarily hand curate the block list. (Maybe they can automate a filter list for their filter list...) I think the problem is that Apple was informed of this problem over a year ago and has neither discussed nor resolved it. That problem is, at best, only hinted at in the article.