Zuckerberg's Superyacht Reportedly Declined To Help Stranded Boat (theguardian.com)
- Reference: 0184924964
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/26/08/11/0521207/zuckerbergs-superyacht-reportedly-declined-to-help-stranded-boat
- Source link: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/09/zuckerberg-superyacht-boat-alaska
> 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 " [2]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 [3]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 [4]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.
[1] https://slashdot.org/~Alain+Williams
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/09/zuckerberg-superyacht-boat-alaska
[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharyfolk/2026/08/09/zuckerberg-representative-denies-yacht-ignored-assistance-call-from-stranded-boat-in-alaska/
[4] https://bsky.app/profile/elkmovie.bsky.social/post/3mscqsxfulk26
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 [1]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.
[1] https://abcnews.com/US/wireStory/zuckerberg-spokesperson-yacht-hear-call-maritime-assist-135511664
Re: (Score:2)
> 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 [1]explains the difference. [youtube.com] He finds the excuses made by Zuckerburg flimsy.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEo5Rw6AMMU
Re: (Score:2)
> 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)
> 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 [1]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.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEo5Rw6AMMU
On the bright side (Score:2)
They didn't have to board Zuck's yacht.
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:3)
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)
Yeah it is just bullshit.
I hope Zuck gets hit hard by the law. Not responding to distress calls on the water is a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it. The crew might be investigated but the call was not the most extreme level of emergencies. The yacht should have helped if it could, and the crew might have to explain why it could not.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially the emergency channel that they are supposed to be monitoring. Also not mentioned is Zuckerburg had 2 vessels in the area: the superyacht and the support vessel. Neither of them responded to the call for assistance.
potentially criminal act (Score:3)
The Duty to Save Lives: Federal law (46 U.S.C. 2304), the SOLAS Convention, and UNCLOS Article 98 mandate that ship masters proceed with all speed to rescue persons in distress at sea.Penalties for Refusal: In the United States, failing to render assistance when able can result in criminal penalties, including a fine up to $1,000 and imprisonment for up to 2 years Likely Zuck would be able to throw his ship's master under the bus for this. And the BS about being on a different channel. You are expected monitor VHF channel 16. It's not hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Only applies if it's a distress call, which the [1]Coast Guard [abcnews.com] says it was not. And said so at the time .
[1] https://abcnews.com/US/wireStory/zuckerberg-spokesperson-yacht-hear-call-maritime-assist-135511664
Re: (Score:2)
Nowhere does your link say "applies if it's a distress call".
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest you have a grown up read it, and explain the long words to you.
More detailed explanation (Score:4, Interesting)
This YouTuber covered the initial news as well as the [1]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:
Zuckerburg had 2 ships in the area. The superyacht and a support vessel trailing behind the yacht. The support vessel carries other vessels like helicopters, speed boats, jet skis, submersibles, extra fuel, etc. that the superyacht does not normally carry but the owner may use. Neither Zuckerburg vessel assisted.
There are different levels of emergency and assistance. The cruise ship did not request the highest level of assistance and more of a "please help if you can" level. The superyacht should have helped because it could but was not legally obligated to do so. At the minimum, it should have diverted or contacted the vessel to determine what assistance would be required.
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.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEo5Rw6AMMU
Prompt Injection (Score:2)
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:2)
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
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.
46USC2304 - Duty to provide assistance at sea (Score:4, Insightful)
Did they actively "decline" to help, or did they never even respond?
The distinction is worth two years in prison.
Re:46USC2304 - Duty to provide assistance at sea (Score:4, 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)
> 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 [1]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.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPVUr9h8s9M
Re: (Score:2)
> What kind of misinformation is this? There was [1]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 claime
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPVUr9h8s9M
Re: (Score:2)
> "Not been confirmed by us independently."
Bahahahahahaha. So your answer to your lie that there "was not a distress call" is to ask other to disprove your claims.
> And the claim that the yacht refused to help was, at best, third hand.
The yacht DID NOT help. That was the refusal.
> 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. . ."
So you refuse to post links validating what you claim then?
> If you'd spend five seconds at a search engine, you'd know all that.
So your answer to you having the facts wrong which you won't support is to claim I did not search. How do you know how much I researched? You don't.
> 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.
Ad hominem attack. Your answer is to attack other people who challenge you. Got it.