Google used anticompetitive practices in an attempt to "preemptively quash" Samsung's Galaxy Store, and prevent it from becoming a viable competitor to its own Play Store. From a report: That's according to an antitrust lawsuit filed by a coalition of three dozen state attorney general, which accuses Google of illegally attempting to control app distribution on Android. The suit also alleges Google paid off app developers to stop them circumventing its store. The allegations challenge one of Google's core defenses of its policies, which is that unlike Apple's iOS rules, Android allows both competing app stores and side-loading apps directly. The lawsuit is effectively claiming that this openness is a facade, because while customers technically have the choice of where to get their apps from, Google's business practices have prevented a viable app store competitor from emerging.

"Google felt deeply threatened when Samsung began to revamp its own app store, the Samsung Galaxy Store," the suit says, and describes Google's approach to the competing store as "a threat it needed to preemptively quash." The suit outlines a range of tactics Google allegedly used to prevent Samsung's store from becoming a viable competitor. It claims Google used revenue share agreements with Android phone manufacturers that "outright prohibited" pre-installing some other app stores, and that it made "a direct attempt to pay Samsung to abandon relationships with top developers and scale back competition through the Samsung Galaxy Store."

The attorneys general of 36 states and Washington, D.C., sued Google "alleging that the company illegally abused its power over developers that distribute apps through the Google Play store on mobile devices," according to Bloomberg. From the report: State attorneys general are targeting the fees Google takes from developers for purchases and subscriptions inside apps. The complaint was filed by 36 states and the District of Columbia in San Francisco federal court Wednesday. The complaint marks a new attack by government officials in the U.S. against the search engine's business practices. The Justice Department and a group of states filed separate complaints over Google's search business last year, while another state coalition sued over Google's digital advertising business. The states are taking on Google even after a federal judge in Washington last week threw out their antitrust lawsuit against Facebook. That case accused Facebook of illegally crushing competition by buying Instagram and WhatsApp because it saw them as threats to its business. The judge said the states waited too long to challenge the acquisitions.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: With only 30 minutes of audio, companies can now create a digital clone of your voice and make it say words you never said. Using machine learning, voice AI companies like VocaliD can create synthetic voices from a person's recorded speech -- adopting unique qualities like speaking rhythm, pronunciation of consonants and vowels, and intonation. For tech companies, the ability to generate any sentence with a realistic-sounding human voice is an exciting, cost-saving frontier. But for the voice actors whose recordings form the foundation of text-to-speech (TTS) voices, this technology threatens to disrupt their livelihoods, raising questions about fair compensation and human agency in the age of AI.

At the center of this reckoning is voice actress Bev Standing, who is suing TikTok after alleging the company used her voice for its text-to-speech feature without compensation or consent. This is not the first case like this; voice actress Susan Bennett discovered that audio she recorded for another company was repurposed to be the voice of Siri after Apple launched the feature in 2011. She was paid for the initial recording session but not for being Siri. Rallying behind Standing, voice actors donated to a GoFundMe that has raised nearly $7,000 towards her legal expenses and posted TikTok videos under the #StandingWithBev hashtag warning users about the feature. Standing's supporters say the TikTok lawsuit is not just about Standing's voice -- it's about the future of an entire industry attempting to adapt to new advancements in the field of machine learning.

Standing's case materializes some performers' worst fears about the control this technology gives companies over their voices. Her lawsuit claims TikTok did not pay or notify her to use her likeness for its text-to-speech feature, and that some videos using it voiced "foul and offensive language" causing "irreparable harm" to her reputation. Brands advertising on TikTok also had the text-to-speech voice at their disposal, meaning her voice could be used for explicitly commercial purposes. [...] Laws protecting individuals from unauthorized clones of their voices are also in their infancy. Standing's lawsuit invokes her right of publicity, which grants individuals the right to control commercial uses of their likeness, including their voice. In November 2020, New York became the first state to apply this right to digital replicas after years of advocacy from SAG-AFTRA, a performers' union. "We look to make sure that state rights of publicity are as strong as they can be, that any limitations on people being able to protect their image and voice are very narrowly drawn on first amendment lines," Jeffrey Bennett, a general counsel for SAG-AFTRA, told Motherboard. "We look at this as a potentially great right of publicity case for this voice professional whose voice is being used in a commercial manner without her consent."

Former President Donald Trump, who has complained about censorship by social media giants, plans to announce class action lawsuits today against Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Axios reported Wednesday. From the report: It's the latest escalation in Trump's yearslong battle with Twitter and Facebook over free speech and censorship. Trump is completely banned from Twitter and is banned from Facebook for another two years. Trump is scheduled to make an announcement at a press conference today at 11 am. Trump's legal effort is supported by the America First Policy Institute, a non-profit focused on perpetuating Trump's policies. The group's president and CEO and board chair, former Trump officials Linda McMahon and Brooke Rollins, will accompany him during the announcement. Class action lawsuits would enable him to sue the two tech CEOs on behalf of a broader group of people that he argues have been censored by biased policies. To date, Trump and other conservative critics have not presented any substantial evidence that either platform is biased against conservatives in its policies or implementation of them.

Twitter no longer enjoys the liability protection against user-generated content in India, the government said in a court filing this week as tension escalates between the two over the South Asian nation's new IT rules. From a report: In a court filing on Monday, New Delhi said Twitter has lost its immunity in India after the American social network failed to comply with the new local IT rules, which were unveiled in February and went into effect in late May. Experts have said in recent weeks that the Indian court -- and not the Indian government -- holds the power to decide whether Twitter gets to keep its safe harbor protections in the world's second largest internet market.

Internet services enjoy what is broadly referred to as "safe harbor" protection that say that tech platforms won't be held liable for the things their users post or share online. If you insult someone on Twitter, for example, the company may be asked to take down your post (if the person you have insulted has approached the court and a takedown order has been issued) but it likely won't be held legally responsible for what you said or did. Without the protection, Twitter -- which according to mobile insight firm App Annie, has over 100 million users in India -- is on paper responsible for everything those users say on its platform.

Anyone deciding to download the free and open-source audio editor Audacity is being warned that the software may now be classified as spyware due to recent updates to its privacy policy. From a report: Audacity has been around for over 21 years and classes as the world's most popular audio editing software. On April 30, the Muse Group acquired Audacity with the promise that the software would "remain forever free and open source." However, as FOSS Post reports, last week the Audacity privacy policy page was updated and introduced a number of personal data collection clauses. The data collected includes OS version and name, user country based on IP address, the CPU being used, data related to Audacity error codes and crash reports, and finally "Data necessary for law enforcement, litigation and authorities' requests (if any)." The personal data collected can be shared with Muse Group employees, auditors, advisors, legal representatives and "similar agents," potential company buyers, and "any competent law enforcement body, regulatory, government agency, court or other third party where we believe disclosure is necessary (i) as a matter of applicable law or regulation, or (ii) to exercise, establish or defend our legal rights."
UPDATE: Ars Technica's Jim Salter disagrees, pointing out that "neither the privacy policy nor the in-app telemetry in question are actually in effect yet," and that the company now plans to self-host its telemetry sessions rather than using third-party libraries and hosting.

An anonymous reader shares a report: If you receive emails flagged as spam or see a warning that a message might be a phishing attempt, it's a sign that your email provider is scanning your emails. The company may do that just to protect you from danger, but in some situations it can delve into your communications for other purposes, as well. Google announced that it would stop scanning Gmail users' email messages for ad targeting in 2017 -- but that doesn't mean it stopped scanning them altogether. Verizon didn't respond to requests for comments about Yahoo and AOL's current practices, but in 2018 the Wall Street Journal reported that both email providers were scanning emails for advertising. And Microsoft scans its Outlook users' emails for malicious content. Here's what major email providers say about why they currently scan users' messages.

Email providers can scan for spam and malicious links and attachments, often looking for patterns. [...] You may see lots of ads in your email inbox, but that doesn't necessarily mean your email provider is using the content of your messages to target you with marketing messages. For instance, like Google, Microsoft says that it refrains from using your email content for ad targeting. But it does target ads to consumers in Outlook, along with MSN, and other websites and apps. The data to do that come from partnering with third-party providers, plus your browsing activity and search history on Bing and Microsoft Edge, as well as information you've given the company, such as your gender, country, and date of birth.

[...] If you're using an email account provided by your employer, an administrator with qualifying credentials can typically access all your incoming and outgoing emails on that account, as well as any documents you create using your work account or that you receive in your work account. This allows companies to review emails as part of internal investigations and access their materials after an employee leaves the company. [...] Law enforcement can request access to emails, though warrants, court orders, or subpoenas may be required. Email providers may reject requests that don't satisfy applicable laws, and may narrow requests that ask for too much information. They may also object to producing information altogether.

"A U.K. high court told Bitcoin.org it can no longer share the 2008 white paper that outlines what bitcoin is on its website," reports Business Insider, "delivering a victory to Craig Wright, a computer scientist who claimed he wrote the original document." Wright won the copyright-infringement case he brought by default, after the website's anonymous founder, known as Cobra, decided not to speak in his defense in the proceedings in London. The ruling on Monday means Bitcoin.org must take the document down from its website. It must also pay Wright £35,000 ($48,600) toward legal costs, as well as put a notice of the court's order on its website for six months, said Ontier, the law firm representing Wright...

"This is an important development in Dr Wright's quest to obtain judicial vindication of his copyright in his white paper," said Simon Cohen, a senior associate at London-based Ontier... The Australian computer scientist claimed to be the original author of the white paper that was published in 2008 and describes what bitcoin is and how it works. Ontier said Wright took Cobra to court in order to prevent supporters of assets such as Bitcoin Core from using the white paper to mis-represent those assets as bitcoin...

"I didn't turn up because I didn't want to expose my identity," Cobra told Insider in a tweet.
Cobra shared more philosophical thoughts on Twitter: All your fiat based assets are ultimately secured by the same legal system that today made it illegal for me to host the Bitcoin whitepaper because a notorious liar swore before a judge that he's Satoshi. A system where 'justice' depends on who's got the bigger wallet. I don't think you could get a better advertisement of *why* Bitcoin is necessary than what happened today. Rules enforced through cryptography are far more superior than rules based on whoever can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in court.
In later tweets he added: Sucks when you have billionaires determined to bury you in endless frivolous litigation... Normally it's the person who owes money who runs and hides, but I've repeatedly reached out to CSW to pay him his court ordered costs, and he doesn't seem to want to receive it. Perhaps he is running away from his money so he can make me in "contempt of court"?

"Thousands of disabled and elderly people in more than a dozen states have had to fight against decisions made by an algorithm to get the support services they need to remain in their homes instead of being institutionalized," reports the U.S. edition of the Guardian: The cuts have hit low-income seniors and people with disabilities in Pennsylvania, Iowa, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Arkansas and other states, after algorithms became the arbiters of how their home health care was allocated — replacing judgments that used to be primarily made by nurses and social workers.

In Washington D.C., "on the worst end, we've had clients who actually died, because their services were cut and they were not receiving the care that they needed" Tina Smith Nelson, supervising attorney with AARP Legal Counsel for the Elderly, said about the effects of a new algorithmic system introduced in 2018. Over 300 seniors have had to file administrative appeals after their home care was cut by a new algorithmic system. "I think as a society we move into unsettling territory when we rely solely upon algorithms and data to make determinations about health care needs," Nelson said. "We reduce a person's humanity to a number...."

The situation is reflective of a reality increasingly affecting all users of American healthcare: algorithms — ranging from crude if-then charts to sophisticated artificial intelligence systems — are being deployed to make all sorts of decisions about who gets care. Government officials have touted algorithmic decision-making systems as a way to make sure that benefits are allocated even-handedly, eliminate human bias and root out fraud. But advocates say having computer programs decide how much help vulnerable people can get is often arbitrary — and in some cases downright cruel. The underlying problem, experts say, is that neither states nor the federal government provide enough funding to allow people needing health assistance to remain safely in their homes — even though these programs usually end up being much less costly than putting people in institutions. The algorithms resort to divvying up what crumbs are available...

Kevin De Liban, an attorney with Legal Aid of Arkansas, began fighting the cuts after severely disabled patients started calling "en masse" in 2016.... De Liban's legal team revealed flaws with the algorithm in court. It turned out, De Liban said, that the calculations had failed to factor in things like whether a patient had cerebral palsy or diabetes. A single point in the scoring system — for instance a point added because the patient had had a fever in the last three days or had open pressure sores — could make a huge difference in how many hours they received for the entire year... "As the algorithm worked, it was, to our eyes, pretty wildly irrational," said De Liban...

After years of court battles, Arkansas' use of the algorithmic system was finally thrown out in 2018... But across the nation, the battle continues. In Washington D.C., Pennsylvania and Iowa, legal services attorneys are plagued with calls from seniors complaining they have lost their care because of the algorithms recently adopted in those states.
The Guardian ultimately tracked down the designer of the algorithm, University of Michigan Professor Emeritus Brant Fries, who acknowledged that the system isn't even designed to calculate how many hours of care people actually need, but to try to allocate whatever scarce resources are available in the most equitable way.

"We're not saying that the size of the pie is correct... But whatever the money is there, I'm dividing it more equally!"

"A federal judge on Wednesday blocked for the time being a new Florida law that sought to punish large social media businesses like Facebook and Twitter if they remove content or ban politicians," reports the Associated Press: U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle granted a preliminary injunction stopping the new law from being enforced. The law — which was supposed to take effect on Thursday — enabled the state to fine large social media companies $250,000 a day if they remove an account of a statewide political candidate, and $25,000 a day if they remove an account of someone running for a local office. The legislation was challenged in federal court in Tallahassee by NetChoice, a lobbying firm that represents Twitter, Facebook and other online companies, and the Computer and Communications Industry Association. Both said the new law was unconstitutional and violated federal law.

The plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claim that the new law violated the First Amendment if the case went to trial, the judge said.

Hinkle said the new law was aimed at only large social media businesses, not smaller ones that provide the same services, and made exceptions for Disney and their apps by including that theme park owners wouldn't be subject to the law.
The judge also argued that the law "compels providers to host speech that violates their standards."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from PC Gamer: An oversight in accounts used to test Microsoft's payment systems let one engineer swindle his way into over $10 million after selling Xbox Gift Cards for Bitcoin over two years, a new report from Bloomberg revealed this week. In order to make sure its payment systems work, Microsoft employs engineers to "simulate" purchases on its stores. But soon after joining the company in 2017, Volodymyr Kvashuk discovered that there was a flaw in the accounts used to test purchases. See, these simulated accounts are usually flagged as such by the system, and won't send you physical goods if you tried to buy, say, a new gamepad from its site. But if you tested a purchase of Xbox Gift Cards, you'd still receive a completely valid 25-digit code. Kvashuk could've easily reported this to his bosses. But with unlimited free codes at his fingertips, he chose a different option instead.

At first, Kvashuk generated himself a handful of codes -- a cheeky $5 or $10 here or there. But there was the opportunity to make massive, life-changing sums of money off this exploit. He began cycling through mock profiles belonging to his colleagues to hide his tracks, automating the process with a bespoke piece of software prosecutors would later describe as "created for one purpose, and one purpose only: to automate embezzlement and allow fraud and theft on a massive scale." After acquiring these codes, Kvashuk would head to crypto marketplaces like Paxful to find prospective sellers. He'd sell them in bulk at a relative discount, which buyers would then go on to sell to folks who wanted to use the codes. Money laundering sites like ChipMixer would let him hide his trail, and the proceeds went towards facilitating an increasingly lavish lifestyle. [...] Microsoft was eventually clued in to Kvashuk's antics after noticing a sharp spike in gift card transactions, with federal agents eventually raiding his home in July 2019. In court, Kvashuk tried to argue that the mass theft was simply an experiment to increase store spending. Obviously, it didn't fly. Kvashuk was sentenced to 9 years in prison, likely deported back to his home country of Ukraine, and will be charged restitution of $8.3 million.

AltMachine shares a report from Reuters: "Lawyers fighting the extradition of Huawei's chief financial officer to the United States on Tuesday presented internal emails from British bank HSBC that they said disproved U.S. claims that Huawei misled the bank," reports Reuters. "CFO Meng Wanzhou's legal team said the emails and documents submitted to a Canadian court showed at least two senior HSBC leaders were aware of connections between Huawei and its Iranian subsidiary, Skycom. Meng's lawyers are trying to add the documents to evidence. They are meant to counter U.S. charges that only junior employees of the British bank knew about the true nature of relationship between Huawei and Skycom. U.S. prosecutors have alleged that Meng misled HSBC about Huawei's business dealings in Iran and may have caused the bank to break U.S. sanctions."

Business dealings with Iran was not illegal under Canada laws as the sanction was not a UN resolution and had no legal basis internationally. The only way for the extradition to proceed would be to show Huawei misled HSBC which operates in the U.S. Amid intensifying US-China technology and economic rivalry, it is not the first time the U.S. law enforcement fabricating false accusation against Chinese or China-linked persons. Earlier in April, U.S. court trial reveals federal agents falsely accused a UT professor born in China of spying and three Congressmen are asking the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General to "review whether the China Initiative puts untoward pressure on DOJ personnel to engage in racial or ethnic profiling." Federal agents falsely accused Hu of spying for China based solely on a Google search, testimony revealed. After Hu refused to work as a spy for the U.S. government, agents stalked and harassed him for more than two years, leading to the destruction of his reputation and internationally renowned career.

Federal law enforcement agencies secretly seek the data of Microsoft customers thousands of times a year, according to congressional testimony Wednesday by a senior executive at the technology company. From a report: Tom Burt, Microsoft's corporate vice president for customer security and trust, told members of the House Judiciary Committee that federal law enforcement in recent years has been presenting the company with between 2,400 to 3,500 secrecy orders a year, or about seven to 10 a day. "Most shocking is just how routine secrecy orders have become when law enforcement targets an American's email, text messages or other sensitive data stored in the cloud," said Burt, describing the widespread clandestine surveillance as a major shift from historical norms.

The relationship between law enforcement and Big Tech has attracted fresh scrutiny in recent weeks with the revelation that Trump-era Justice Department prosecutors obtained as part of leak investigations phone records belonging not only to journalists but also to members of Congress and their staffers. Microsoft, for instance, was among the companies that turned over records under a court order, and because of a gag order, had to then wait more than two years before disclosing it.

The US government has filed a superseding indictment against Paige A. Thompson, a former Amazon engineer accused of hacking Capital One and stealing the personal data of more than 100 million Americans. From a report: According to court documents filed earlier this month and obtained by The Record, the US Department of Justice has added seven new charges on top of the original two it filed in August 2019. The new charges -- six counts of computer fraud and abuse, and one count of access device fraud -- come as investigators have made headway in analyzing data seized from Thompson's computers and servers.

John McAfee's death last week in a Spanish prison complicates the U.S. government's intent to recover millions of dollars it says the software tycoon owed in taxes and allegedly ill-gotten gains from promoting cryptocurrencies. From a report: McAfee, who decades ago founded the anti-virus company that bears his name, was found dead in his cell just hours after Spanish courts approved his extradition to the U.S. to face charges of tax evasion. U.S. prosecutors accused McAfee of not filing tax returns from 2014 to 2018 even as he earned millions from "promoting cryptocurrencies, consulting work, speaking engagements and selling the rights to his life story for a documentary," according to an indictment last June in a U.S. court in Tennessee, where he once lived.

Spanish court documents released last week alleged he owed the U.S. government more than $4.2 million in taxes. Separately, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission claimed McAfee promoted investments in initial coin offerings without disclosing he was paid more than $23 million to do so. The U.S. Department of Justice has a similar case against him. According to the indictment, McAfee managed to avoid paying taxes by routing his payments through bank accounts and cryptocurrency accounts set up in other people's names and hiding assets like real estate, a vehicle and a yacht also under the names of others. Such a complex money trail could keep lawyers busy for years.

Facebook shares posted their biggest intraday gain in two months after it won a dismissal of two antitrust cases, pushing its market value above $1 trillion for the first time. The social-media giant jumped as much as 4.4%, the most since April 29 after a judge granted Facebook's request to dismiss the complaints filed last year by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general. Reader phalse phace writes: A federal court on Monday dismissed the Federal Trade Commission's antitrust complaint against Facebook, dealing a major setback for the agency's complaint that could have resulted in Facebook divesting Instagram and WhatsApp.

"Although the Court does not agree with all of Facebook's contentions here, it ultimately concurs that the agency's complaint is legally insufficient and must therefore be dismissed," reads the filing from U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. "The FTC has failed to plead enough facts to plausibly establish a necessary element of all of its Section 2 claims -- namely, that Facebook has monopoly power in the market for Personal Social Networking (PSN) Services." The court dismissed the complaint, not the case, meaning the FTC could file its complaint once again.

Global streaming giant Netflix lost a South Korean court case on Friday, in the world's first ruling over a dispute about whether over-the-top service providers should pay internet service companies for network usage. From a report: In April 2020, Netflix filed a complaint against SK Broadband, rejecting the Korean internet provider's demand that the streaming platform pay for network use in South Korea. The legal action has drawn attention because it marks the world's first legal conflict between an OTT platform and a broadband company. South Korea is one of the world's fast-growing OTT markets, where Netflix posted triple-digit earnings growth in 2020 from the year previous. On June 25, the Seoul Central District Court rejected the case brought forth by Netflix, while dismissing Netflix's claim that the OTT platform has no obligation to negotiate with SK Broadband over the network use charges. "It needs to be determined by negotiations between the parties involved whether or not some fees will be paid, or whether they enter an agreement in accordance with the principle of freedom of contract," the court ruling reads.

The Houston Chronicle reports: The Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday in a Houston case that Facebook is not a "lawless no-man's-land" and can be held liable for the conduct of pimps who use its technology to recruit and prey on children.

The ruling came in a trio of Houston civil actions involving teenage trafficking victims who met their abusive pimps through Facebook's messaging functions. They sued the California-based social media juggernaut for negligence and product liability, saying that Facebook failed to warn about or attempt to prevent sex trafficking from taking place on its internet platforms. The suits also alleged that Facebook benefited from the sexual exploitation of trafficking victims. The justices said trafficking victims can move forward with lawsuits on the grounds that Facebook violated a provision of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code passed in 2009.

Facebook lawyers argued the company was shielded from liability under Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which states that what users say or write online is not akin to a publisher conveying the same message. Essentially, they said, Facebook is immune to these types of lawsuits. The majority wrote, "We do not understand Section 230 to 'create a lawless no-man's-land on the Internet' in which states are powerless to impose liability on websites that knowingly or intentionally participate in the evil of online human trafficking... Holding internet platforms accountable for the words or actions of their users is one thing, and the federal precedent uniformly dictates that Section 230 does not allow it," the opinion said. "Holding internet platforms accountable for their own misdeeds is quite another thing. This is particularly the case for human trafficking."

The justices explained that Congress recently amended Section 230 to add the possibility of civil liability for websites that violate state and federal human-trafficking laws. They said under the amended law states may protect residents from internet companies that knowingly or intentionally participate in human trafficking through their action or inaction..... Annie McAdams, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said it was a groundbreaking decision. This is the first case to beat Facebook on its argument that it had immunity under Section 230, she said.

Writing on CNN, an American historian looks at the Supreme Court's recent 8-1 ruling in favor of the free-speech rights of Brandi Levy, who as a 14-year-old cheerleader had posted a photo to Snapchat cursing out her school and its cheerleading program. But the historian also suggests where this ruling came up short: In recent decades the Court has sought to widen public schools' parental and paternalist reach, shrinking the sphere of students' free speech rights... In Levy's case, she was using social media off-campus, outside of school hours, to express a criticism of an extracurricular activity. If her school could control that speech, then there would be very little space left for Levy to express herself.

Yet the Court took too modest an approach to students' rights. The Mahanoy decision was much narrower than the lower court's. The Third Circuit had ruled that the school had no right to interfere with off-campus speech, a decision that would have significantly expanded students' rights. In Mahanoy, the Court ruled that schools may still regulate student speech off-campus, depending on the circumstances (though did not lay out a framework for those circumstances, leaving that to future court decisions)...

[P]ublic schools are more properly (if less creatively) understood as, well, the schools of democracy, where students are taught and guided and given an opportunity to test out the rights of citizenship. Social media have become an integral part of students' public identity — indeed, of many adults' public identity. Students should be taught about the inevitable permanence of ephemeral speech. A Snapchat snap, an Instagram story, a Twitter fleet, all designed to disappear, can easily be made permanent. Levy thought she was making a relatively private, fleeting statement, only to find it memorialized in Supreme Court jurisprudence.

But students should also have more speech protections, be allowed to criticize the institutions in which they spend so much of their time — and be largely free of their school's oversight when they are beyond the schoolhouse gates.

The New York Times notes that "record numbers of shareholder votes" are "pressing major, publicly traded petroleum companies to prepare for a zero-carbon world." And then they tell the story of two activist investors who attempted to pack Exxon Mobil's board of directors with a slate of climate-friendly nominees at its annual shareholder's meeting:

It had been a bruising year for the industry, with oil prices trading negative last spring and record numbers of shareholder votes pressing major, publicly traded petroleum companies to prepare for a zero-carbon world. Just that morning, as the meeting was starting, the news broke that a Dutch court had declared that Shell must accelerate its emissions-reduction efforts. As Exxon Mobil's meeting was underway, so was Chevron's, and shareholders there voted in favor of a proposal to reduce the emissions generated by the company's product, which would call for a re-evaluation of the core business...

[T]he core of [activist investor Charlie Penner's] argument rested on mobilizing shareholders with classic activist tactics: focusing on the company's financials, underscoring its flagging profitability and setting out an argument for how to raise the value of the company's stock by making smarter expenditures. He didn't aim to undercut the core business necessarily; rather than urging Exxon Mobil to give up all oil and gas, he wanted the company to practice what finance people like to call "capital discipline," which basically just means not spending prodigiously. He also reasoned that, given mounting pressure from society and governments to decarbonize the global economy, it would be strategically smarter for Exxon Mobil to be part of an energy transition, rather than letting itself be outstripped by other companies innovating to meet demand for low-carbon power...

With plans to increase oil-and-gas production by 25 percent over the next five years, the company seemed out of step with the market. Profitability had already been slipping for a decade. Exxon Mobil earned the largest annual profit in U.S. history in 2008 and nearly eclipsed that record in 2012; last year it lost $22 billion. In part, the loss was due to a historic $19 billion write-down on the value of its assets. That assessment may still be too rosy; a whistle-blower reportedly told the Securities Exchange Commission in January that Exxon Mobil had overvalued its assets by at least $56 billion, in part by pressuring employees to inflate expectations about the drilling timelines in the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico, which remains the company's U.S. cash cow. (Exxon Mobil called the claims "demonstrably false....") Penner already sensed that Exxon Mobil was an industry outlier, more reluctant than others to recognize that if the world enacted the emissions reductions that its governments had committed to, there would be no viable business for a publicly traded oil company in 30 years...

[Exxon Mobile] spent more than $35 million blanketing shareholders with appeals to reject the activists and stick with management... Just days before the proxy votes would be tallied, Exxon Mobil announced that it would add two more yet-unnamed directors, one with "climate experience" and one with experience in the energy industry. But the company's efforts at placating the activists fell short, and a week after the annual meeting, it became clear by how much; the company announced that Andy Karsner, the energy entrepreneur, had also been elected to the board, giving Engine No. 1's candidates a quarter of the seats.
The small activist hedge fund Engine No. 1 holds just 0.02 percent of ExxonMobil's stock, points out the Washington Post, "but marshaled commanding support from investment managers, pensions funds and individual shareholders."

The Times called their victory "shocking," and dubbed them "the little hedge fund taking down big oil."