Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg's Yacht Refused to Help Ship in Distress

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 30 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Yacht Refused to Help Ship in Distress

#21

Post by happytoexplain »

caminante wrote: post #15
Groxx wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Yacht Refused to Help Ship in Distress

#22

Post by Groxx »

happytoexplain wrote: post #20
Groxx wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I've read the article, and I don't see anything like what you're referring to. There is no mention of legality. Sure, of course the internet is chock-full of wrong articles or comments, either innocently or outright dishonestly. If you are refuting those articles/comments, then reply to them (or at the very least mention them). You were commenting directly on an article that does not commit the specific sin you are l…

The "Ship in Distress" title editorializing here is part of a very active flood of "lol zuck broke the law" both here and elsewhere.

Which is probably why it's now flagged off the front page.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Yacht Refused to Help Ship in Distress

#23

Post by jjav »

ProAm wrote: post #4
Georgelemental wrote: post #3

> 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 pa…

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

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

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.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Yacht Refused to Help Ship in Distress

#24

Post by Moomoomoo309 »

burnt-resistor wrote: post #2

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.

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.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Yacht Refused to Help Ship in Distress

#25

Post by caminante »

happytoexplain wrote: post #21
caminante wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

> but there is no alleged crime in the article.

Now, you're trying to conveniently ignore the context of the post you replied to here [0].

> isn't always

> More often than not

I skimmed the rest and saw too many weasel words. Good luck.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49251688

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Yacht Refused to Help Ship in Distress

#26

Post by hackeraccount »

strictnein wrote: post #8

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

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.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Yacht Refused to Help Ship in Distress

#27

Post by caminante »

Groxx wrote: post #22
happytoexplain wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read the article, and I don't see anything like what you're referring to. There is no mention of legality. Sure, of course the internet is chock-full of wrong articles or comments, either innocently or outright dishonestly. If you are refuting those articles/comments, then reply to them (or at the very least mention them). You were commenting directly on an article that does not commit the specific sin you are l…

The "Ship in Distress" title editorializing here is part of a very active flood of "lol zuck broke the law" both here and elsewhere. Which is probably why it's now flagged off the front page.

Don't bother.

You already provided the facts, and they want to pretend like there isn't a legal obligation to respond to a distress call and the Zuck hate clickbait was otherwise.

Honestly, Zuck haters should be the first ones to point this out so it doesn't distract from other criticism.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Yacht Refused to Help Ship in Distress

#28

Post by happytoexplain »

Groxx wrote: post #22
happytoexplain wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read the article, and I don't see anything like what you're referring to. There is no mention of legality. Sure, of course the internet is chock-full of wrong articles or comments, either innocently or outright dishonestly. If you are refuting those articles/comments, then reply to them (or at the very least mention them). You were commenting directly on an article that does not commit the specific sin you are l…

The "Ship in Distress" title editorializing here is part of a very active flood of "lol zuck broke the law" both here and elsewhere. Which is probably why it's now flagged off the front page.

It's a bad article, aside from not exhibiting the specific problem you were originally reacting to. I think it deserves to be flagged. I have not heard about this event anywhere else, and I have not read these bad takes about legality (but it's not surprising to hear that such a "flood" exists).

I only wanted to engage you with the idea that the "rude but not illegal" and "expected of yacht owners" lines are a common form of downplaying bad behavior (we see this all the time when people talk about the bad behavior of large businesses).

And to be clear, I'm not personally attacking Zuckerberg. I don't even know if what he did was actually rude! That's just the premise of your comment.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Yacht Refused to Help Ship in Distress

#29

Post by happytoexplain »

caminante wrote: post #27
Groxx wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "Ship in Distress" title editorializing here is part of a very active flood of "lol zuck broke the law" both here and elsewhere. Which is probably why it's now flagged off the front page.

Don't bother. You already provided the facts, and they want to pretend like there isn't a legal obligation to respond to a distress call and the Zuck hate clickbait was otherwise. Honestly, Zuck haters should be the first ones to point this out so it doesn't distract from other criticism.

Please, I'm begging you to consider leaving this style of comment on the rest of the internet, where it normally lives.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Yacht Refused to Help Ship in Distress

#30

Post by strictnein »

hackeraccount wrote: post #26
strictnein wrote: post #8

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

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.

It's been depressing to see the progression of a lot of formerly good tech sites/blogs into anti-tech doomslop.
Post reply on HN