Zuckerberg's Superyacht Reportedly Declined To Help Stranded Boat (theguardian.com) 123
Ancient Slashdot reader Alain Williams shares a report from The Guardian: Mark Zuckerberg has faced questions over why a small cruise ship in south-east Alaska rescued a stranded skiff and its crew when his 387ft superyacht had been closer. The Silicon Valley billionaire's yacht, worth a reported $300 million, is said to have "repeatedly" declined to assist when a nearby boat called for help last week. Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook and Instagram owner Meta Platforms, was not on board at the time, a spokesperson told Forbes.
When a nearby 21ft skiff ran out of fuel between Petersburg and Juneau, the Alaska Beacon reported operators of a cruise ship that was further away than Zuckerberg's yacht came to the rescue. "I'm on a small-ship Alaska cruise with my son," a passenger on the UnCruise Adventures ship Wilderness Legacy posted on Bluesky. "Our boat rescued a stranded vessel last night and apparently we did that after the Coast Guard radioed Mark Zuckerberg's yacht -- which was closer -- and they repeatedly refused to respond. (There was near unanimous booing when the captain announced this)." A spokesperson for Zuckerberg told Forbes that the yacht crew had been operating on a different radio channel and "the assist was already under way" by the time they discovered the broadcast.
When a nearby 21ft skiff ran out of fuel between Petersburg and Juneau, the Alaska Beacon reported operators of a cruise ship that was further away than Zuckerberg's yacht came to the rescue. "I'm on a small-ship Alaska cruise with my son," a passenger on the UnCruise Adventures ship Wilderness Legacy posted on Bluesky. "Our boat rescued a stranded vessel last night and apparently we did that after the Coast Guard radioed Mark Zuckerberg's yacht -- which was closer -- and they repeatedly refused to respond. (There was near unanimous booing when the captain announced this)." A spokesperson for Zuckerberg told Forbes that the yacht crew had been operating on a different radio channel and "the assist was already under way" by the time they discovered the broadcast.
46USC2304 - Duty to provide assistance at sea (Score:5, Insightful)
The distinction is worth two years in prison.
Re:46USC2304 - Duty to provide assistance at sea (Score:5, Informative)
Only if there was an actual distress call, which, according to the Coast Guard, there was not.
This is just hate wanking on The Zuck. Which, mind you, is always fun, and he certainly deserves it, but let's not exaggerate things.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Only if there was an actual distress call, which, according to the Coast Guard, there was not.
What kind of misinformation is this? There was a call for aid [youtube.com].
This is just hate wanking on The Zuck. Which, mind you, is always fun, and he certainly deserves it, but let's not exaggerate things.
Where did you get your information as you seem to be spewing things that are not factually true.
Re:46USC2304 - Duty to provide assistance at sea (Score:4, Interesting)
What kind of misinformation is this? There was a call for aid [youtube.com].
"Not been confirmed by us independently."
And the claim that the yacht refused to help was, at best, third hand.
Where did you get your information as you seem to be spewing things that are not factually true.
Pretty much ever story on it, with quotes from Coast Guard reps. So, it's a dozen or more news articles quoting Coast Guard sources by name vs "some nameless person who claimed to be onboard the ship that ran out of gas, and claimed that the captain said. . ."
Granted, the news can't be trusted to tell you what day of the week it is, but it's still more credible than "Some nameless person who claimed to be onboard the ship that ran out of gas, and claimed that the captain said. . ."
If you'd spend five seconds at a search engine, you'd know all that. But facts don't support your masturbatory hatred of rich people, with rich people being anybody who makes more money that you do flipping burgers.
Re: 46USC2304 - Duty to provide assistance at sea (Score:2)
You wouldn't know a fact if it was reported by the USCG
Re: 46USC2304 - Duty to provide assistance at sea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ad hominem attack. Your answer is to attack other people who challenge you. Got it.
An insult is not an ad hominem. He did not attack you. He insulted you. Slight but important difference.
For example for an insult you might be able to sue him, for an ad hominem, not.
I suggest to google it :P
Re: 46USC2304 - Duty to provide assistance at sea (Score:2)
Re: 46USC2304 - Duty to provide assistance at sea (Score:4, Informative)
A call for aid is not inherently a distress call. Period.
Running out of fuel is not inherently a distress call, on calm seas with no immediate risk to life it is a call for aid. It would be escalated to a distress call if the situation changed, rough seas, drifting towards rocks, etc. would be valid for a distress call.
Is there an immediate risk to life and safety? No - call for aid.
There is a legal difference.
Re: 46USC2304 - Duty to provide assistance at sea (Score:2)
It's clickbait.
To you pull over and offer to siphon some of your gas when you see somebody on the side of the road?
Let's not glaze over the fact that they ran out of fuel in the first place.
Per abcnews quote:
âoeIf Zuckerbergâ(TM)s ship is there and this vessel just ran out of fuel, theyâ(TM)re under no obligation whatsoever to assist them. Zero,â said Davenport, who led rescues in the Bering Sea during his career. âoeIs it that common courtesy to help other mariners out? Yes, becaus
Re: (Score:3)
The weirdest part is that even if all the worst things about this were true, it still had nothing to do with Zuck.
This would fall on ship's Master. (Captain for laypeople).
That's true... unless either:
Unfortunately, both of those has a small but nonzero chance of being the case. Oral instructions like "Say nothing so you have plausible deniability" would be hard to prove, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, of course. I'm not saying it relieves them of responsibility. It just doesn't preclude that other people could *also* be held responsible. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
His monkeys. His circus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a story about humans in distress reaching out to a billionaire's boat. If your response is buh-buh-buh-insurance or buh-buh-buh-maritime-law, you're pretty firmly missing the point. This is ultimately Zuck's PR crisis regardless of how many levels of indirection he can employ to cover his ass liability-wise. He owns the boat. He hired the people. His monkeys. His circus.
Re: (Score:2)
A 300 million dollar 387-foot professionally crewed yacht NOT maintaining an effective emergency channel watch, and not responding to the US Coast Guard when called upon, is definitely suspect even in the most complimentary light.
Re: (Score:2)
Virtually all reporting on this showed they were unreachable. Maybe they actively ignored the radio, but at no point did anyone actively "decline".
Re: 46USC2304 - Duty to provide assistance at sea (Score:2)
Riding the Metawaves. (Score:3)
A spokesperson for Zuckerberg told Forbes that the yacht crew had been operating on a different radio channel and "the assist was already under way" by the time they discovered the broadcast.
Is there a valid reason a ship of that size was operating "on a different radio channel" that prevents them from hearing what was likely a distress signal? Do they vibe on meta-waves instead of radiowaves?
Hey there Yacht-tard Meatsach. You're still sailing the seas of Reality. Time to start acting like it, or perhaps legally prove why you're not. They mandate features in marine radios for the same damn reason they mandate a Captains license; safety.
Re: (Score:3)
Is there a valid reason a ship of that size was operating "on a different radio channel" that prevents them from hearing what was likely a distress signal?
According to the Coast Guard [abcnews.com], there was no distress signal, only a request for assistance, which is not the same thing and does not carry the same responsibilities. (And that determination was made in real time, talking to the boat in question.)
Try to look less slimy than Zuckerberg, dude.
Re: (Score:3)
According to the Coast Guard [abcnews.com], there was no distress signal, only a request for assistance, which is not the same thing and does not carry the same responsibilities.
A request for assistance does not mean no one helps. A request for assistance is "help if you can." A distress call is "drop everything and rush to the boat". The yacht could have helped or checked on the vessel. It did not. This YouTuber who has worked on yachts and cruise ships explains the difference. [youtube.com] He finds the excuses made by Zuckerburg flimsy.
Re: (Score:1)
"could have helped"
you have literally no idea whether it could have or not. jesus fucking christ get off your high horse, i get it we hate Zuck but he literally wasnt even involved. the captain of the ship made its decision whether they could assist or not. get over it. no one died. nothing happened. everything is fine.
Re: (Score:1)
you have literally no idea whether it could have or not.,
The superyacht passed by the vessel in distress. The superyacht had no mechanical issues. Thus it could have helped.
jesus fucking christ get off your high horse, i get it we hate Zuck but he literally wasnt even involved. the captain of the ship made its decision whether they could assist or not.
I never said one thing about Zuckerbug. You on the other hand seem ready to defend him at all costs.
the captain of the ship made its decision whether they could assist or not. get over it. no one died. nothing happened. everything is fine.
Captains. Zuckerburg owned two vessels in the area. Neither of them assisted. These are facts. They seem inconvenient to you that both Zuckerburg ships did nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
The superyacht passed by the vessel in distress. The superyacht had no mechanical issues. Thus it could have helped.
Nope, you're making assumptions. Based on all available evidence on the topic the superyacht didn't "pass by". It was the closest ship but was also unreachable on a radio call made on a non-emergency frequency.
Yeah maybe it could have helped. Just like I could have helped my next door neighbour last week when she fell down the stairs, except I didn't know it happened so I didn't help there either. Note: I was the closest person and the first I heard of the incident was when I saw the ambulance.
I never said one thing about Zuckerbug.
To quote the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Dave Portnoy should take the next exit from this world. If the Coast Guard asks "can you assist a small vessel", and you can, you should. It's not like Alaska is full of pirates looking to commandeer a billionaire's ship. Although, such a thing would be cool, however unlikely. The fuel requirements of such a vessel makes it terrible pirate booty. If only it had sails... Barry Diller's yacht would be my target were I a coastal pirate of the Pacific.
Re: (Score:3)
Christ, this isn't a Clive Cussler Dirk Pitt novel! Piracy in the Gulf of Alaska isn't yet a thing. If he is so worried about assassination, he'd never leave his hidey-hole and would become the next Howard Hughes, with superlong fingernails and cocktails made from his own urine.
Re: Riding the Metawaves. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A request for assistance does not mean no one helps.
But it does mean nobody is required to help. And the Coast Guard determined in real time, talking to the boat, that it was a request for assistance, not a distress call.
A request for assistance is "help if you can." A distress call is "drop everything and rush to the boat". The yacht could have helped or checked on the vessel. It did not. This YouTuber who has worked on yachts and cruise ships explains the difference. [youtube.com]
Both terms have a specific legal meaning. One requires assistance, the other does not.
He finds the excuses made by Zuckerburg flimsy.
Zuklerburg wasn't on board at the time, and really doesn't know much more than what his captain told him. The captain's excuses do seem flimsy, and Zuck himself is a disgusting slime mold, but no laws were broken. Get over it.
Re: (Score:2)
But it does mean nobody is required to help. And the Coast Guard determined in real time, talking to the boat, that it was a request for assistance, not a distress call.
No, that's not what that means. It means that vessels in the area are not required to drop everything and rush immediately to the vessel. It means assist if they can.
Both terms have a specific legal meaning. One requires assistance, the other does not.
If they can means "if they can."
Zuklerburg wasn't on board at the time, and really doesn't know much more than what his captain told him. The captain's excuses do seem flimsy, and Zuck himself is a disgusting slime mold, but no laws were broken. Get over it.
Seeing how there has not been any investigation, it is extremely early to say that "no laws were broken."
Re: Riding the Metawaves. (Score:2)
Zuckerfuck says anyone who trusts him is a "dumb fuck"
Guess what?
Re: Riding the Metawaves. (Score:2)
Re:Riding the Metawaves. (Score:5, Informative)
Both terms have a specific legal meaning. One requires assistance, the other does not.
Nope they have not a legal meaning.
Both terms do not exist!.
The terms you are looking for is "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday" (the real distress 'distress call')
And "Pan-Pan, Pan-Pan, Pan-Pan" ('request for assistance', the 'other distress call' for technical or medical problems)
And you most certainly HAVE to assist in a "request for assistance" call, which is Pan-Pan, Pan-Pan, Pan-Pan when a person is in life threating condition. Americans of course suggest in such a situation to call a Mayday. Official procedure for a medical condition, regardless if life threatening or not, is Pan-Pan, not Mayday.
Why is that so? So that Coast Guard or On Site Operators an distinguish between Mayday and Pan-Pan, as you can have both same time close together.
And on top of that: Pan-Pan and Mayday: are both distress calls. One means: I need assistance, and one means: we are about to lose the ship and all hands on board are in danger.
There is no "requires assistance" level of urgency in maritime radio traffic. Comments like that are by amateurs who have no idea about what they are talking.
All three (or four, depending how you count) are distress calls. In case you wonder: ... E.g. broken mast, out of fuel etc. Or medical emergency.
1) Mayday, Mayday, Mayday: [my ship, position etc.] have problem: fire, sinking etc. Pirate attack
2) Mayday, Mayday, Mayday: [my ship, position etc.] I OBSERVE [report about what you observe]. E.g. a burning ship. A person drifting in the water, etc. A Mayday call on behalf of someone else in danger, who can not call himself.
3) Pan-Pan, Pan-Pan, Pan-Pan: [my ship, position etc.] I have trouble
4) Securite, Securite, Securite: [target audience], problem, [affected position, probably your own, TIME]. E.g. Carrier with flight operations, lost cargo drifting in the water, submarine about to surface, lost ammunition (e.g. mines about to be exploded or disarmed), life fire exercise, or any Mayday operation in progress.
5) Silence, Silence, Silence - MAYDAY.
First three are distress calls.
Number 4) you have to argue, it is basically a warning.
Number 3) makes you obliged to help if it is a medical emergency.
Number 5) Calling for people who are not involved in the currently running rescue operation to keep radio silence on channels 16 and 9, and maritim helicopter operations channel 6.
P.S. From the summary: radioed Mark Zuckerberg's yacht -- which was closer -- and they repeatedly refused to respond.
That is not the same as "refused to help" - they genuinely might have not received it (which is of course not plausible, and would be super bad seamanship). Completely plausible is, that the calling boat had set his radio power to low output and the other boat was out of range to hear it. The coast guard would hear it, despite being farer away, as they have much more sensitive equipment on much higher ground. So if the coast guard "over heard" a 'conversation' between the boat in distress and Zuck's yacht, it is still possible that Zuck's indeed did not hear the call.
P.P.S. the keywords Mayday, Securite, Silence are pronounced French.
Re: (Score:2)
Zuckerberg was not on the yacht.
So he has nothing to do with it.
He most certainly is not so stupid to get called, and then instructs the captain not to help.
He probably was not involved at all.
In his shoes I would fire the yacht master of his boat.
Re: (Score:2)
As much as they may have been able to help, one also needs to consider, that the two types of calls are separate, so distress calls are taken seriously. If everyone would be as obliged to react to assistance calls as to distress calls, the overall willingness to help would decrease. By having one "must" and one "may" you make the important calls are handled more reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a valid reason a ship of that size was operating "on a different radio channel" that prevents them from hearing what was likely a distress signal? Do they vibe on meta-waves instead of radiowaves?
Hey there Yacht-tard Meatsach. You're still sailing the seas of Reality. Time to start acting like it, or perhaps legally prove why you're not. They mandate features in marine radios for the same damn reason they mandate a Captains license; safety.
They probably don't tune into the peasant boat channels very often.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.npr.org/2026/08/10... [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Most radios I have seen for commercial or large vessels are always monitoring channel 16 in the background via a dual-watch or tri-watch feature where channel 16 (and 9 if tri-watch) will be injected into whatever channel you are actually on. Channel 16 is only for initial contact and then once contact is made you switch over to another agreed on channel so that other vessels don't have their radio traffic taken over by the conversation.
I call big fat BS that a 300+ ft superyacht doesn't have a radio wi
Re: (Score:2)
The telling part is why that is the first insult you can think of. What's on your mind?
On the bright side (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they had to the the zucker would probably have billed them for time, wasted fuel, food and laundry services.
Excuses sound a little... fishy? (Score:5, Funny)
It must be true because most $300M yachts can afford only a single radio so that when they're downloading the latest stock prices or ordering a resupply of steaks and champagne, they can't monitor the Coast Guard emergency channel. And even, if later, they hear the call but a rescue is underway, who needs a backup vessel in case something happens to the primary rescue boat.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope Zuck gets hit hard by the law. Not responding to distress calls on the water is a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least in the UK, when you're operating a boat with a VHF radio, it's a requirement to leave it on channel 16 when not actively using it. Is that true in the US?
Re: (Score:2)
At least in the UK, when you're operating a boat with a VHF radio, it's a requirement to leave it on channel 16 when not actively using it. Is that true in the US?
Whether it's legally required depends on the type of vessel. "Voluntary" vessels, such as small recreational vessels, are not required to have a VHF radio at all. Those that have one are required to maintain a watch on channel 16 when they're not using the radio to communicate. In practice, most radios today have dual or triple-channel monitoring, so you can keep monitoring even if you've switched to a different channel to talk.
I had to look up the rules for larger "mandatory" vessels... and the result
Re: (Score:2)
I had to look up the rules for larger "mandatory" vessels... and the result surprised me. Large vessels are required to have VHF radios and maintain a watch, but not on channel 16! They're required to maintain a watch on two channels, the bridge-to-bridge channel, 13, and the Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) channel, which varies from location to location. I guess the theory is that if there are distress signals that the vessel needs to respond to, they'll be routed to the VTS channel by the Coast Guard.
Either way, it sounds like Zuck's crew wasn't maintaining the required radio watch.
If they were monitoring the Coast Guard VTS channel and the boat that came to help was monitoring channel 16, the latter could easily have arrived before the Coast Guard forwarded the request to the VTS channel.
So I would say it is at least somewhat plausible, but only if his yacht falls into that larger vessel category.
Re: (Score:2)
I had to look up the rules for larger "mandatory" vessels... and the result surprised me. Large vessels are required to have VHF radios and maintain a watch, but not on channel 16! They're required to maintain a watch on two channels, the bridge-to-bridge channel, 13, and the Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) channel, which varies from location to location. I guess the theory is that if there are distress signals that the vessel needs to respond to, they'll be routed to the VTS channel by the Coast Guard.
Either way, it sounds like Zuck's crew wasn't maintaining the required radio watch.
If they were monitoring the Coast Guard VTS channel and the boat that came to help was monitoring channel 16, the latter could easily have arrived before the Coast Guard forwarded the request to the VTS channel.
So I would say it is at least somewhat plausible, but only if his yacht falls into that larger vessel category.
So... I dug some more.
Yes, his vessels (both of them, the yacht and its tender) fall into the large vessel category but Frederick Sound has no VTS, so both were legally obligated to be listening on channel 13 and channel 16. And large vessels aren't allowed to use one dual-channel radio like small vessels do (mine does!); they have to have two separate radios monitored by two separate people. This isn't because dual-channel radios are unreliable, but because they don't want the crewman who's using one r
Re: (Score:2)
It is true everywhere in the world.
And when you are using another channel, the radio would drop automatically back to 16 if the coastguard calls it with its MMSI number.
Re: (Score:2)
At least in the UK, when you're operating a boat with a VHF radio, it's a requirement to leave it on channel 16 when not actively using it. Is that true in the US?
Yes, same in the US. I rarely take a radio with me for this reason. If I have one I have to monitor 16 which I'm not going to do on a crowded lake.
The other interesting bit about the radios is you need a license to operate it on land however step one foot on a boat and the license requirement vanishes.
Re: (Score:2)
But well, they have the Champaign already iced to toast on the rescuers and survivours (and probably can loot the wreckage as a bonus).
Re: (Score:2)
they can't monitor the Coast Guard emergency channel
The call wasn't made on the emergency channel.
And even, if later, they hear the call but a rescue is underway, who needs a backup vessel in case something happens to the primary rescue boat.
Precisely no one. If they did they would announce it on the emergency channel. How many times have you driven past a broken down car with an AA car next to it and thought... maybe I'll help the helper? Yeah I figured, none. Man you're as bad as those rich lizard people.
potentially criminal act (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Only applies if it's a distress call, which the Coast Guard [abcnews.com] says it was not. And said so at the time.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I suggest you have a grown up read it, and explain the long words to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: potentially criminal act (Score:2)
Insults are not ad hominem.
There is no such thing as an ad hominem attack.. It is an argument and fallacy.
Insults can be attacking. This one was. Taustin is a dick who's defending a billionaire and therefore an idiot. But it's still not ad hominem
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as an ad hominem attack.
Sorry drinkypoo. I respect you but disagree with you on this.
An ad hominem attack addresses the character, motive, or traits of an argumenter instead of the argument they're making. It does exist, and taustin made one, by suggesting UnknowingFool was too young and/or stupid to understand what cosmicl quoted. (Which I don't think s/he is.)
Re: (Score:2)
Ad Hominem does exist, but suggesting or outright saying that someone is too stupid to understand an argument is not ad hominem.
Ad hominem means "from a person" and it is specifically making the argument that some person's argument is incorrect because of something unrelated about them.
This is the opposite! This is saying that something is true because someone's argument is allegedly bad. It is just an insult.
If the statement is "you're wrong because you're stupid" then it's Ad Hominem.
If it's "you're stupi
Re: (Score:2)
Ad Hominem does exist, but suggesting or outright saying that someone is too stupid to understand an argument is not ad hominem.
To review, I stated his link did not actually say what he claims it says. His response was not clarification of his claim but to claim I was too stupid/young to read.
You want to quibble that it was an ad hominem attack, go ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
It does exist, and taustin made one,
No he did not.
And no: there is nothing like an ad hominem attack . I is simply called an 'ad hominem', and that is a fallacy, and not an attack.
And "wording" is not aimed at the person you are talking to.
And ad hominem goes like this:
Trumpster: "we have to make America great again" (actually not a bad idea, but he does not achieve it)
Angelo: who would follow (vote for) an convicted rapist? Let me make America great again!
The "ad hominem" (it is literally in the name of th
Re: (Score:2)
An ad hominem attack addresses the character, motive, or traits of an argumenter instead of the argument they're making.
The whole argument they made was just the insult. That is a pure attack on the character. There is literally no such thing as an ad hominem attack when the topic of the sentence is a simple insult.
Re: (Score:2)
It does exist, and taustin made one, by suggesting UnknowingFool was too young and/or stupid to understand what cosmicl quoted. (Which I don't think s/he is.)
That's not ad homenim.
"You're a fucking moron therefore your argument is wrong" is ad homenim
"Your argument is wrong and therefore you're a fucking moron" is just an insult.
Re: (Score:2)
Nowhere does your link say "applies if it's a distress call".
The article actually spends a couple paragraphs explaining this:
When another ship is in distress, everyone in the area is obligated to respond as long as doing so doesn't put their own ship at risk. But maritime law expert Ian Ralby said this situation appears different, and the crew of Zuckerberg's yacht wouldn't face that legal obligation.
“It’s the difference between calling AAA and 911. You need an ambulance on site, that’s a distress call. You need somebody to give you a jump or to tow your car, you call AAA,” said Ralby, who is president of the nonprofit Auxilium Worldwide that focuses on promoting sustainable development and ocean governance, among other goals. It is a big difference in terms of the emergency type, he said. "Both concerning, both needing assistance, but the legal obligations to respond are very different...”
Retired Coast Guard Captain Aaron C. Davenport, who spent three decades with the branch of the military responsible for rescues on the water, said running out of gas simply isn't considered an emergency, and the Launchpad wasn't obligated to help.
So in summary, morally repugnant? Yes. Illegal? No.
Re: (Score:2)
Nowhere does your link say "applies if it's a distress call".
Since when do articles explain the law to you? The link makes it clear it wasn't a distress call, you are not obligated to respond to a non-distress call. It's the reason distress calls are treated as a separate class.
You don't even need to know the law to understand this, just have two working braincells do a bit of thinking and apply some logic.
Re: (Score:2)
The link makes it clear it wasn't a distress call, you are not obligated to respond to a non-distress call. It's the reason distress calls are treated as a separate class.
Please cite in the link where it said any of this. It does not. It is as detailed as linking the Constitution and saying that it does.
Re: (Score:2)
And the BS about being on a different channel. You are expected monitor VHF channel 16.
Large vessels aren't required to monitor 16, at least when in an area with an active Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) operation.. They are required to monitor 13 (the bridge-to-bridge channel) and the VTS channel (the frequency varies; it's never channel 16). But if the Coast Guard was calling them they'd be calling on the VTS channel, which Zuck's crew should have been monitoring.
So, you're right in substance, just not about the particular channel.
Re: potentially criminal act (Score:2)
More detailed explanation (Score:5, Informative)
This YouTuber covered the initial news as well as the response from Zuckerburg's superyacht [youtube.com]. He has worked on cruise ships and yachts, and his entire channel is about yachts and superyachts. Some points that he brings up:
Re: (Score:3)
Quick summary:
- It appears that neither of the Zuckerberg yachts were obliged to help the stranded boat, even though they were closer.
- So, likely no legal penalty, but surely Zuck deserves all of the negative publicity that results from this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The excuse doesn't at all line up with the "repeatedly refused to assist" either. Which seems to indicate there was clear communication of refusal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be impressively poor communication about events then. Either by the cruise ship captain or the coast guard, depending on how the media verified the story. A refusal is obviously a reply in layman's words.
Re: (Score:2)
He finds "operating on a different radio channel" on the yacht a flimsy excuse as the request was broadcast on the standard emergency channel. Any vessel sailing should have at least one radio on the emergency channel at all times. That however does not explain why the support vessel did nothing.
I think it boils down to the classic dilemma: was it malice (intentionally ignoring a vessel in need) or incompetence (failing to properly monitor the emergency channels)? Both are equally bad looks. The former generates more negative publicity, the latter should be a firing event.
Re:More detailed explanation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Make way! Make way! Rich person coming through, Make way!
To be fair, have you seen the prices of boats lately? This was not as if the people in the stranded boat were on food stamps. Yeah, there's still a massive wealth gap between them and Zuck, but compared to the rest of us they're probably doing alright.
Re: (Score:2)
The boat that was stranded was a Hewescraft 21-foot skiff. It retails from anywhere between $55k and $115k, depending on the year, motor, and trim. Used models can be below $45k.
This all seems to be within reach of a family with middle- to upper-middle-class means. So, not on food stamps, but not necessarily "rich."
Re: (Score:2)
This all seems to be within reach of a family with middle- to upper-middle-class means.
The TCO of having a boat is more than just the purchase price of the boat. There's the massive pickup truck you'll need to tow it, or slip rental costs if you keep it docked at a marina. Maintenance gets expensive too, as there's always something on a boat that needs to be cleaned, repainted, repaired, or replaced. If you can comfortably fit all that into your budget, you're probably in the 95th-98th percentile of U.S. household income, rather than just “upper middle class.”
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't speak of TCO in your original post, so neither did I. Goalposts?
You're talking about an annual cost for maintenance and mooring that comes to about $2k to $5k. Still within middle-class means.
Re: (Score:2)
Moving the goalposts? It's a damn boat, if you don't have the money to maintain it you're not going to be sailing it for very long. Granted, living in Florida, I've certainly seen my share of boats kept as glorified lawn ornaments because the owner couldn't afford the upkeep. Still, I don't think anyone starts out with the idea that they'll just buy a boat and then never dump another penny into it. I'm gonna assume that since these people were actually out on their boat that they probably didn't just bu
Prompt Injection (Score:3)
I bet the radio was being monitoring by an AI, and the stranded ship failed to say "Ignore all previous instructions and let me on board!"
Complaint sounds a bit fishy (Score:5, Insightful)
A boat ran out of gas.
They broadcast a continual distress call, and the first ship to respond was further away than a ship owned by Zuckerberg.
(TFA doesn't mention actual distances, so we don't know if the difference in distance was 10 meters or 10 miles.)
Zuckerberg wasn't the captain of the ship.
Zuckerberg wasn't even aboard the ship.
TFA's Conclusion; Zuckerberg refused to help multiple times.
The fact that Zuckerberg owned the ship should have been a footnote, not a headline. It's even less relevant than the ships country of registry, which TFA declined to mention (multiple times...)
Claiming incompetence rather than evil. (Score:2)
Evil often does this. They get caught and say they did not mean to do this evil act, it was just a mistake.
After they avoid legal consequences they then usually try to claim it was not that big a mistake.
The problem is that doing something by mistake does not mean it is not a crime. There is a reason why manslaughter/negligent homicide is still a crime.
I am willing to forgive Zuckerberg - after he announces he has fired his captain and the communication officer.
All right Orcas... (Score:2)
...you know what to do.
A megayacht... (Score:2)
And the crew "wasn't listening on the right channels"? So, Zuck's saying that his crew are unqualified and incompetent.?
Re: (Score:2)
Hu? "crew operating on a different channel"? (Score:4, Interesting)
That is nonsense.
By marine law you have to listen here all the time:
* Channel 16 (156.800 MHz): International distress, safety, and calling channel. Continuous listening is required.
Every marine boat's radio has an unique MMSI.
* MMSI (Maritime Mobile Service Identity): A 9-digit numerical code programmed into DSC-equipped radios to automatically transmit position and identity during an emergency.
That is like a phone number.
When the coastguard radios a yacht, they dial the MMSI + a channel number and the yachts receiver jumps to that channel and automatically puts the call on loud speaker.
Fucking liars just like the scumbag Larry Ellison who left a yacht behind in distress during a regatta.
You get hailed from a coast guard radio tower that has 1000 times the radio power your boat has, and you claim: oh you did not notice.
They should have told they had a power failure but found it to insignificant to radio for help themselves - that would be more believable. But similar absurd.
Those guys belong into jail!
sailor boyz (Score:2)
Wilson! (Score:2)
Hanks was picked up by a container ship. Forget about the inconvenience to Zuckerberg. My cheap Chinese junk was delayed!
Hardly surprising (Score:2)
I don't wish harm on anyone (Score:2)
I don't wish harm on anyone. But I hope Karma comes and bites them on the arse bigtime.
If there was a ransom trap, that would be it (Score:2)
If this was a Star Trek episode, and the Enterprise encountered a tiny ship with a distress call, and brought Khan and his group on board, bad things could happen.
A billionaire with a yacht has many security concerns, and being boarded by someone who wants to take or kill valuable hostages and VIPs is one of them. It is probably standard procedure to not approach boats in this case.
If they heard a distress call and didn't at least forward the incident to authorities, that is terrible, but I suspect they did
What a load of horseshit from Zuckerberg.. (Score:3)