No matter how rude something someone says about you on the internet is, you can sue them—but not the platform where they said it. That’s thanks to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which broadly protects websites from liability for posts made by third parties. But the Supreme Court yesterday agreed to hear a case that will test just how far that goes.

The case the Supreme Court will take up, which was lodged against Google over YouTube recommending videos made by ISIS, is about what responsibility websites might have for hosting terrorist propaganda (as is a related suit the court also agreed to hear against Twitter).

But Section 230 covers a whole lot more

Dating back to the pre-Google days of 1996, the 26-word law laid the foundation for the internet we have now by establishing that websites can set rules about what they allow users to post while still not being on the hook legally for user-generated content.

With that much power, Section 230’s been controversial for a long time now.

• Who loves Section 230? Big Tech and anyone else whose business depends on the internet. It’s the law that allows Google, social media companies, video-sharing sites like YouTube and Vimeo, review-based sites like Yelp or Airbnb, and even regular ol’ sites that allow user comments the ability to operate without getting sued into oblivion over things like defamation.
• Who hates it? Politicians on both sides of the aisle. Both Donald Trump and Joe Biden have called for the repeal of Section 230. Republicans tend to ding the law for giving tech companies too much say over what speech people see online (like when Twitter booted Trump), while Democrats complain it gives tech companies a pass for allowing hate speech and disinformation.

Bottom line: The internet landscape won’t change immediately, but when the court does eventually rule, it’s got options: It could narrowly focus on whether exceptions should be made for terrorism (like the ones that already exist for copyright violations)—or it could totally change life on the internet as we know it.—AR

“Systemic” abuse found in US women’s soccer. A yearlong investigation culminated in a report released yesterday that faults the National Women’s Soccer League coaches and executives, and the US Soccer Federation, for ignoring players’ complaints of sexual, verbal, and emotional misconduct. The report, commissioned by US Soccer, focuses on three high-profile cases, but also notes that abuse was normalized throughout the league and that leaders were more concerned with being sued than righting wrongs. The investigation follows protests by players who felt they weren’t being heard.

North Korean missile flies over Japan. North Korea fired a ballistic missile yesterday that soared over northern Japan before landing in the Pacific Ocean, forcing Japan to warn residents to take cover and causing a temporary suspension of train service in the area. It’s the first time North Korea has sent a missile into Japanese airspace in five years, and it represents a major escalation. Japan’s prime minister strongly condemned the launch, which came after Japan conducted anti-submarine exercises with the US and South Korea last week.

Ukrainians ratio Elon Musk’s tweets. Musk seemed to anger the whole war-torn nation yesterday by tweeting out a poll asking citizens of recently annexed territories and Crimea whether they’d prefer to be Ukrainian or Russian (as well as a tweet floating his own peace process). Even Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky shot back with his own Twitter poll asking whether people preferred a Musk who supports Russia or Ukraine. Fighting a bigger enemy, Ukraine also made major gains yesterday in taking back land from Russia, especially in the south.

Swiss bank Credit Suisse was no angel thanks to numerous missteps and a high-profile corporate spying scandal, but the internet decided this weekend to brand the firm with a big scarlet D: The bank’s credit default swaps (CDS)—a security that reflects how much default risk the market sees—surged yesterday after rumors spread throughout the trading floor that the bank was short on cash.

Now, social media is ablaze with hot takes that suggest we’re looking at Lehman Brothers 2.0.

Don’t start spiraling tho. Most experts have pointed out that yes, Credit Suisse’s rapid CDS jump does mean investors think the firm has a higher probability of defaulting on its loans. But if you zoom out a little, that probability is still very low.

How did we get here? Record high inflation + the Fed’s rate-hike-a-palooza + Credit Suisse’s less-than-stellar performance this year = investors on edge. So when execs tried to do damage control by asserting that “everything’s all good over here!” it just made everyone freak out more.

Looking ahead…the bank is expected to make a restructuring announcement on October 27 that will address its plans for coming back from epic blunders like the $5.5 billion loss it sustained when client Archegos Capital collapsed last year.—MM

In a cautionary tale for all influencers, Kim Kardashian will pay $1.26 million to settle an SEC investigation into her allegedly shady promotion of the crypto asset EthereumMax (EMAX). But if we can’t trust a celebrity shilling crypto, who can we trust?

According to the SEC, Kardashian failed to disclose a $250,000 payment she received for a June 2021 Instagram story promoting the crypto asset, thereby violating a US law that requires people promoting securities to disclose if they were paid to do so. In the story (marked #ad), Kardashian asked her then-250 million followers, “ARE YOU GUYS INTO CRYPTO????” and linked out to the EthereumMax website. The story was called “the financial promotion with the single biggest audience reach in history” by a UK financial regulator.

But all that reach didn’t stop then-one-month-old EMAX from plummeting in value shortly after Kardashian’s post. Today, an investment in EMAX made at the time of the post would be worth about 95% less (which is bad).

Kardashian didn’t admit or deny wrongdoing as part of the settlement.

Zoom out: Is Kardashian’s crypto promotion the most egregious in the Wild West of crypto? Probably not. But experts say that by focusing on the ultra-famous superstar, regulators are trying to warn all celebs and influencers that they should think twice before offering financial advice on the blockchain.—MK

Stat: From glass bottle Coke to juices in little plastic barrels from the ’90s, it’s just a fact that putting your drink in a cool container is a savvy business play. The latest example of the rule is Liquid Death, the three-year-old beverage startup now valued at $700 million following a $70 million investment round. On track for $130 million in revenue this year, the brand sells water in appealing, ironically hardcore cans that are more environmentally friendly than plastic bottles. Liquid Death’s CEO said the company hopes to pursue an IPO in the next two years.

Quote: “We are very concerned about our scores, and find that they are not an accurate reflection of the time and effort put into this class.”

NYU students managed to get their organic chemistry professor fired for being too hard. The professor, Maitland Jones Jr., wrote an influential textbook on the subject and had a long career at Princeton before landing at NYU, but he was dismissed by the university after 82 of his 350 students signed a petition against him last spring. Fellow chemistry profs and some other students came to his defense, sparking a debate over just who was to blame for struggling students, but Jones has said, “I don’t want my job back.”

Read: Uncovering the AI himbos of Hinge. (Wired)

For some #facts: Check out this month’s Harper’s Index.

Logistics! Here’s the simple genius of NYC’s water supply system.

Time to BeReal: SNL delivered a parody of the social media sensation.

Brew Mini: Do you know which Queens, NY, neighborhood is named after a fur tycoon? See if you can get it in today’s Mini.

Peace out

Ahead of the Nobel Peace Prize announcement on Friday, we’re quizzing you on past winners of the award. You’ll get the year they won and the reason why they were chosen, and you have to name the winner.

1964: “For his non-violent struggle for civil rights for the Afro-American population.”

1979: “For her work for bringing help to suffering humanity.”

1986: “For being a messenger to mankind: His message is one of peace, atonement and dignity.”

2009: “For his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

2014 (two people): “For their struggle against the suppression of children and young people and for the right of all children to education.” One was Kailash Satyarthi. Who was the other?

Looking for a simple fix to ease your spreadsheet stress? Shop the PC Excel Dictionary Bundle now for 330+ shortcuts and 120+ functions.

🎙 On Business Casual: how the founder of AOL plans to fix the broken economy. Listen or watch here.

You can fall down an investing rabbit hole, or go through Money With Katie’s Investing series instead. Sign up for free.

Calling all marketers: The Brief is a one-day summit with the world’s most influential brands and marketers. Register now.

1964: Martin Luther King Jr.

1979: Mother Teresa

1986: Elie Wiesel

2009: Barack Obama

2014: Malala Yousafzai