Mark Zuckerberg's Yacht Refused to Help Ship in Distress

Groxx•about 1 hour ago

From the original article they link to: https://alaskabeacon.com/briefs/cruise-ship-helps-stranded-s...

>According to the U.S. Coast Guard and the Marine Exchange of Alaska, which monitors ship traffic in Alaska, there was no distress call — just a general request for assistance.

As much as I wish bad things on Zuckerberg, this seems pretty clearly on the "rude but not illegal" side of things. Super-yachts are kinda by definition rude already, so this seems entirely expected.

happytoexplain•27 minutes ago

Why would you adopt a defensive tone regarding "rude and expected" behavior? Are either of those things good? Is illegality the bar for criticism?

Groxx•22 minutes ago

It's being drummed up to "the ship was in distress and this is illegal under maritime law" absolutely everywhere that I've seen.

Like this post. The "Ship in Distress" part of "Mark Zuckerberg's Yacht Refused to Help Ship in Distress" in the display text here is inaccurate, in a legally-significant way. (Was this the original headline text? I don't see any evidence of it, at least)

Or comments here, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49251495

caminante•7 minutes ago

Clearly, the tone comes because the accused weren't guilty of the alleged crime (as you rightfully pointed out), and saying someone's behavior is expected to be bad isn't defending them.

The parent comment is just edgy pontification.

Georgelemental•about 1 hour ago

> In a statement, a spokesperson for the Meta founder said that “Mark and his family were not on board at the time of the incident,” the superyacht was using a different radio channel, and the skiff was not in distress. “By the time the crew reviewed the Coast Guard contact on a different radio channel from the one they were operating on, the assist was already underway,” the spokesperson said. “We’re grateful all parties are safe.”

ProAm•about 1 hour ago

"Different radio channel"? The emergency channel is pretty standard in all mariner activities. They just didnt want to help.

burnt-resistor•about 1 hour ago

Yep. Constantly monitoring VHF 16 and 70 (when DSC enabled) is pretty much required.

ButlerianJihad•about 1 hour ago

> Different radio channel

Are sailors as busy meowing at one another as those pilots on guard frequency 121.5?

Petersipoi•about 1 hour ago

Sounds like you've decided what you'd like to believe

strictnein•about 1 hour ago

The entire article is just sloppy "Zuck bad, AI bad" clickbait. There is absolutely no indication anywhere that they refused to help.

burnt-resistor•about 1 hour ago

This wouldn't just be an apparent breach of international maritime law, but it's also a US federal crime not to do so under 46 USC 2304 punishable by up to a $1,000 fine and/or 2 years in prison. Not sure how the flagging of Launchpad in the Marshall Islands affects it or not, but the captain could be held liable if the owner weren't such good buddies with the current regime.

aleph_minus_one•about 1 hour ago

USD 1,000 is just play money for Zuck, so I guess Zuck will pay this little bill for his captain.

burnt-resistor•39 minutes ago

It's true that small fixed fines not regularly reindexed to inflation don't matter much to the rich and their allies. That's why about half of European countries use structured fines instead, which might still be circumvented when the owner is far richer than the captain and can gift the amount. Perhaps some judges in structured fine jurisdictions have the discretion to adjust them to be so onerous that the fine ensures corrective behavior, which is the primary ostensible reason for fines and penalties of laws to begin with. At present though, there are many more things the Epstein class are able to get away with openly now than in the near recent past.

kennywinker•26 minutes ago

If the punishment is a fine, it’s legal if you’re rich.

Mark Zuckerberg's Yacht Refused to Help Ship in Distress

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion (14 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews