3 ms·

Mark Zuckerberg's Yacht Refused to Help Ship in Distress

48 points by master_crab 2mo ago

burnt-resistor 2mo 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 2mo ago
  USD 1,000 is just play money for Zuck, so I guess Zuck will pay this little bill for his captain.
  - burnt-resistor 2mo 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 2mo ago
      If the punishment is a fine, it’s legal if you’re rich.
- Moomoomoo309 2mo ago
  The original source in the top comment of this thread is much better than the hit piece linked in the thread itself. Read that and see if your comment is still accurate, because as much as Zuck is a terrible human, this article is presented really dishonestly.
Georgelemental 2mo 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 2mo ago
  "Different radio channel"? The emergency channel is pretty standard in all mariner activities. They just didnt want to help.
  - ButlerianJihad 2mo ago
    > Different radio channel Are sailors as busy meowing at one another as those pilots on guard frequency 121.5?
  - Petersipoi 2mo ago
    [flagged]
  - burnt-resistor 2mo ago
    Yep. Constantly monitoring VHF 16 and 70 (when DSC enabled) is pretty much required.
  - jjav 2mo ago
    Yes this is true. "In general, any vessel equipped with a VHF marine radiotelephone (whether voluntarily or required to) must maintain a watch on channel 16 (156.800 MHz) whenever the radiotelephone is not being used to communicate." The only exception is if in a Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) area, then must be monitoring the VTS channel. (But even cheap handhelds VHFs will monitor two channels at once) https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/radio-watchkeeping-regulations https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/radio-watchkeeping-regulations Article says this was in Farragut Bay which is not a VTS area. So, yes, every boat around was required to be monitoring VHF channel 16.
strictnein 2mo ago
The entire article is just sloppy "Zuck bad, AI bad" clickbait. There is absolutely no indication anywhere that they refused to help.
- piloto_ciego 2mo ago
  Depending on the boat and the crew and the knowledge of the crew, it might have been more dangerous for them to help than the other boat in the area too. As much as my gut instinct is "screw Zuck" the reality is "we don't really know the full picture, and the Wilderness Legacy knew what was up well enough to handle the problem so they did"
- hackeraccount 2mo ago
  That Ars these days. They want attention and this is the way their audience wants them to do it. Personally I'm a bit bummed out about it because there's less that I want to read and the articles make the comment section... well, like the articles. I shouldn't complain though - someone took note of where the traffic was and it wasn't people like me. Also I still visit the site, it just seems like there's for me.
  - strictnein 2mo ago
    It's been depressing to see the progression of a lot of formerly good tech sites/blogs into anti-tech doomslop.
Groxx 2mo ago
From the original article they link to: https://alaskabeacon.com/briefs/cruise-ship-helps-stranded-skiff-and-crew-in-southeast-alaska-as-zuckerberg-yacht-stands-by/ 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 2mo 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 2mo 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49251495
    - caminante 2mo 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.
      - happytoexplain 2mo ago
        You said "alleged crime", but there is no alleged crime in the article. Yes, "it's expected" isn't always a defense, but your implication is wrong: More often than not, it is a defense (the most common format is "why are you surprised?"), and that applies here (otherwise, it makes no semantic sense in the parent's comment). Regardless, why resort to petty insults? It hurts to see this on HN.
ChrisArchitect 2mo ago
Source flagged a few days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49222993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49222993
ksudb 2mo ago
[dead]

48 points by master_crab 2mo 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 2mo ago
USD 1,000 is just play money for Zuck, so I guess Zuck will pay this little bill for his captain.
- burnt-resistor 2mo 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 2mo ago
    If the punishment is a fine, it’s legal if you’re rich.
Moomoomoo309 2mo ago
The original source in the top comment of this thread is much better than the hit piece linked in the thread itself. Read that and see if your comment is still accurate, because as much as Zuck is a terrible human, this article is presented really dishonestly.

Georgelemental 2mo 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 2mo ago
"Different radio channel"? The emergency channel is pretty standard in all mariner activities. They just didnt want to help.
- ButlerianJihad 2mo ago
  > Different radio channel Are sailors as busy meowing at one another as those pilots on guard frequency 121.5?
- Petersipoi 2mo ago
  [flagged]
- burnt-resistor 2mo ago
  Yep. Constantly monitoring VHF 16 and 70 (when DSC enabled) is pretty much required.
- jjav 2mo ago
  Yes this is true. "In general, any vessel equipped with a VHF marine radiotelephone (whether voluntarily or required to) must maintain a watch on channel 16 (156.800 MHz) whenever the radiotelephone is not being used to communicate." The only exception is if in a Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) area, then must be monitoring the VTS channel. (But even cheap handhelds VHFs will monitor two channels at once) https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/radio-watchkeeping-regulations https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/radio-watchkeeping-regulations Article says this was in Farragut Bay which is not a VTS area. So, yes, every boat around was required to be monitoring VHF channel 16.

strictnein 2mo ago

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

piloto_ciego 2mo ago
Depending on the boat and the crew and the knowledge of the crew, it might have been more dangerous for them to help than the other boat in the area too. As much as my gut instinct is "screw Zuck" the reality is "we don't really know the full picture, and the Wilderness Legacy knew what was up well enough to handle the problem so they did"
hackeraccount 2mo ago
That Ars these days. They want attention and this is the way their audience wants them to do it. Personally I'm a bit bummed out about it because there's less that I want to read and the articles make the comment section... well, like the articles. I shouldn't complain though - someone took note of where the traffic was and it wasn't people like me. Also I still visit the site, it just seems like there's for me.
- strictnein 2mo ago
  It's been depressing to see the progression of a lot of formerly good tech sites/blogs into anti-tech doomslop.

Groxx 2mo ago

From the original article they link to: https://alaskabeacon.com/briefs/cruise-ship-helps-stranded-skiff-and-crew-in-southeast-alaska-as-zuckerberg-yacht-stands-by/ 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 2mo 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 2mo 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49251495
  - caminante 2mo 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.
    - happytoexplain 2mo ago
      You said "alleged crime", but there is no alleged crime in the article. Yes, "it's expected" isn't always a defense, but your implication is wrong: More often than not, it is a defense (the most common format is "why are you surprised?"), and that applies here (otherwise, it makes no semantic sense in the parent's comment). Regardless, why resort to petty insults? It hurts to see this on HN.

ChrisArchitect 2mo ago

Source flagged a few days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49222993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49222993

ksudb 2mo ago

[dead]