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 lamenting. This is how shitposting begins.
This is like the classic internet fallacy: A story negatively painting X person/group appears (in this case, the story writer, rather than the story subject). Somebody says, "This is just another example of those people", and when confronted with the revelation that it is not an example of that, the reply is not "Whoops, sorry", but rather, "Well... they would do that, though."
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.
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.
Comments
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 lamenting. This is how shitposting begins.
This is like the classic internet fallacy: A story negatively painting X person/group appears (in this case, the story writer, rather than the story subject). Somebody says, "This is just another example of those people", and when confronted with the revelation that it is not an example of that, the reply is not "Whoops, sorry", but rather, "Well... they would do that, though."
It's how high-quality communities like HN erode.
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.
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.