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.
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2026
347 points (87.3% liked)
Work Reform
17190 readers
2570 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
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.
Have you ever sailed before?
Be pissed at Zuck for all the right reasons
His hair and face.
You want to tell me there is one small radio with single channel on the billion dollar worth yacht.
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?
Basically this is how this whole shitshow started. So yeah coastguard politely asked them for help.
https://bsky.app/profile/elkmovie.bsky.social/post/3mscqsxfulk26
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.
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.
Bootlicker. Captains job is to follow maritime law and listen out for and aid those in distress.
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.
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?
No.
Simply out of fuel, the yacht reached out to anyone on radio. The Meta yacht later learned what happened from Coastguard on a different channel. Also, no one but base crew was on the Meta yacht who won't be having a guy sit by a radio 24/7, floating through 64 public channels on the off-chance some one needs a lick of gas for their sailboat.
This is exactly why there is actual maritime distress protocols to be used in actual distress. Otherwise, you just do what the yacht did; anchor up and keep cycling channels until eventually someone picks up and can hopefully help.
Also Zuckerberg wasn't on the yacht at the time. The headline implies he personally decided how to respond.
Yeah, lol.
~~Mark Zuckerberg~~ A boat crew ~~leaves stranded boat passengers~~ doesn't hear yachtie radio chat ~~to die~~ asking to fill up gas ~~in the middle of the Pacific~~ just outside of harbour.
🤷
Wow ive seen thus story floating around a bunch on reddit and here and this is the first time I've seen these facts.
This and other reasons are why I've been getting away from reddit. The enshittification is underway.
No, they are distinctly different. Distress calls start with mayday or panpan depending on context and are emergencies
Nope. In the same way that calling for a tow truck is not the same as calling for an ambulance.
I appreciate you bringing facts to Lemmy.
Can I still root for people to sink that yacht?
Root for the whales
Tanks for letting know the actual story, fueling hate throught fake information isnt something anyone will like
Wow I'm surprised a billionaire ignored someone in desperate need.
Why is this an image instead of a link?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/09/zuckerberg-superyacht-boat-alaska
Because OP just turboposts crap from reddit
Whar would you have him do? Help the poor? In THIS economy?
That is not what happened.
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.
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.
There are different levels of help request and this wasn’t the “oh shit we’re dying” request.
So yeah…
Not a joke but what is the law of the sea?
What happens if you break it?
Sea jail?
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.
Keelhauling
Maritime law.
No he didn't. He wasn't even there. This isn't a real thing.
He wasn't even on board, he clearly left instructions to his crew to never allow a poor on board
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.
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.
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.
"Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook and Instagram owner Meta Platforms, was not onboard at the time, a spokesperson told Forbes."
an android robot has little concern for organic lifeform.
Would you expect more from a billionare?
You dont get billions ethically.
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
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.