So Apple is selling a pink iPhone, which has "cautionary indications for our current moment...marked by overheated, precarious global economies; injudicious, unsustainable disparities of wealth; and a metastatic consumer culture."
I didn't know colors had that much effect on society.
>Rose gold is not always the inevitable elemental precursor to populist revolution.
Rolls eyes.
Pink does have a particular set of meanings for people, and gold is ostentatious. That's really all that's being claimed. It's like the assertion that Hello Kitty can tell us something about Japanese society: hard to disagree with.
May not be making claims but the author surely abuses confusion of an ostentatious material and the color named after it, although Apple has done the same by introducing a watch made of the material and a phone of the color on the same day. Author also gets the history wrong -- rose gold peaked in the early 19th century not the 20th -- in order to buttress the final point about revolutions.
Is "Christina Warren, writing at Mashable," with no link, actually considered an acceptable way to quote an author online? It's sort of attribution, but it feels obfuscating.
It's perfectly acceptable in print. This article was probably written with print in mind.
Except TFA is online, and the source is only online. The New Yorker is a grown-up capable organization; they could somehow handle linking to a tweet two sentences before. (I don't have the print version so I can't say whether the tweet URL/QR/etc is included in that.) SEO love would seem to have been the least they could have offered to little old Mashable for the helpful lead-in quote.
they didn’t mind linking out to International Herald Tribune, though
Did anyone find a "Sponsored" label somewhere around the article, or is it not obligatory in the US?