top 47 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 115 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Same vibe as that fuck Joel Osteen refusing to allow people to shelter during a hurricane. These people care for no one but themselves and their money.

EAT. THE. FUCKING. RICH.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 18 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    That is not what happened.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago* (6 children)

    Just because they didn't die (someone else rescued them) doesn't mean his crew didn't "leave them to die." Do you have evidence they knew the other ship would arrive in time? The duty of the nearest vessel to help a vessel in distress has been part of the Law of the Sea since the beginning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    The boat was just off the harbour, and ran out of fuel. It made non-emergency requests for assistance - not the same as a distress call. Vessels were not obliged to render assistance.

    “Leaving them to die” is hysterical and hyperbolic, and a gross distortion of the facts. If you feel you have to go there, you’re implying even you don’t believe in your premise. It’s like berating motorists for driving past a car with a flat tyre a few hundred metres from a tyre shop and claiming they’re leaving the broken down motorist to die. Silly.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Not a joke but what is the law of the sea?

    What happens if you break it?

    Sea jail?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    Pretty sure boats are registered to specific countries and generally fall under the laws of that country in international waters. In non-international waters, I'm pretty sure it's under that nation's laws.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago

    Whar would you have him do? Help the poor? In THIS economy?

  • source
  • [–] 88 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    As a person that hates billionaires and the current economic situation, but also has an understanding of maritime rules and some of the finer details of this story, I think you should rewrite your headline. They were outside of a harbor in Alaska and there was no distress call. If you want to build something, please don’t base it on lies because that just weakens the foundation of what could be something we have coming.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    The Silicon Valley billionaire’s yacht, worth a reported $300m, is said to have “repeatedly” declined to assist when a nearby boat called for help last week.

    Does calling for help not count as a distress call?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Billionaires are literally defective humans. They all belong in mental asylums.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 52 points 2 months ago (11 children)

    Hot take: Since I've seen this article posted a ton lately...

    Facts:

    • Zuck wasn't on board
    • They were on a different radio channel than the distress call
    • By the time they switched to the same radio channel, another vessel was already helping
    • The distressed vessel was not in imminent danger, just without power

    Be pissed at Zuck for all the right reasons. This isn't one of them. The captain was just doing his job.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 2 months ago* (3 children)

    They were on a different radio channel than the distress call

    There is a particular frequency that distress calls go out on, you are required by maritime law to always be tuned into that channel. So to claim that you are innocent because you weren't tuned to the channel is like claiming that police didn't respond to a 999 call because the operator was using the line to talk to their friends. They are still basically admitting to breaking the law.

    By the time they switched to the same radio channel, another vessel was already helping

    Should they were not tuned into a illegally mandated frequency for a good while then. They still have questions to answer.

    The fact that the vessel wasn't in immediate danger is irrelevant because they had no way to know that because they weren't listening to the distress frequency.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    Yeh, channel 16 is the emergency channel, but you don't have to have your radio tuned to it 24/7. You can change channels if you want to speak privately to another boat or if you're coming into dock. It's not completely infeasible that they were talking on another channel and only switched back once the danger had passed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Did they call out on 16? The article I read implied (but admittedly didn't outright state) they didn't make a distress call and just called for general assistance, and they called the Coast Guard on 22A, then the Coast Guard issued an assistance request for them on . Which would mean that Zuck's crew didn't do anything illegal and was just skuzzy, as should be expected of anything connected to him. Still means they were either lying about/poorly keeping watch on 16 as the Coast Guard should have broadcast on it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    You want to tell me there is one small radio with single channel on the billion dollar worth yacht.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Not defending Zuck the Cuck, but just how many multi channel radios do you think they need to have? And how do you monitor and manage all those radios as a single crewmember on duty on the bridge ? Does an entity like the Coast Guard bear any responsibility to listen to the emergency channel and know how to contact the nearest ship/boat?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    I agree with your point that no one on the megayacht is personally to blame, they're just doing their job and (hopefully) not actively harming anyone.

    It's just a little surprising to me that there's no mandate for ships above a certain displacement to carry a radio that's permanently tuned to the emergency channel. You know, a large ship may be more likely to have a crew member listening, so may cut down response times if and when that stuff matters during an emergency.

    Of course the coast guard should still be monitoring and coordinating, it's just that maritime law requires you to respond to emergency calls, so why not mandate things so it's more likely you'll hear the emergency call? I guess that stuff is hard to mandate since all those ships are registered in Panama and the like, but still.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Is that what they're saying. If they're claiming that then it's incompetence, which I'd love for that yacht, a crew captained by incompetence. (Spoiler: it's not)

    There are certain frequencies you broadcast for help on, those channels are always open. They heard the distress calls, life or death you help. Negligence plain and simple.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    No he didn't. He wasn't even there. This isn't a real thing.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago

    He wasn't even on board, he clearly left instructions to his crew to never allow a poor on board

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    "Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook and Instagram owner Meta Platforms, was not onboard at the time, a spokesperson told Forbes."

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Wow I'm surprised a billionaire ignored someone in desperate need.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    Why on earth would a piece of shit like him stop to help anyone if there’s not a few billion dollars in it for him?

    This is a non-story. It would be news if he DID help them.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    Mark is a self-admitted asshole. The fact that he doesn't care about how semi biographical movies depicted his initial real life rise to fame and knowing how teenagers are harmed by social media shows he doesn't care.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    Oh, no, the billionaire cunt who's known for being a cunt and mocking the trust of his user base has done a complete cunt thing! So unexpected.

    God, even after coming out as villains, billionaires suck ass.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    Bootstraps don't work at sea??? How would he know?

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    an android robot has little concern for organic lifeform.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Would you expect more from a billionare?

    You dont get billions ethically.

  • source
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago

    Oops! My guess is that he had some tweens on that boat and would have found himself in a compromising position if he intervened. His bros assaulted the tweens while he recorded it all through his "man glasses". /s

  • source
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago

    Most humans are defective. He profits on you, on exploiting children, on child abuse ads, and now this. BUT we still indirectly support him, cheer him on, give him money - why? Because we are lazy, Facebook is practical and we don't bother to change anything.

  • source