Spot on. This is exactly how the HN crowd thinks. In fact, this extends to most people between 18-25.

"It's okay if I do it, but not if others do it to me."

"It's okay for me to ask brain teasers and textbook algorithms questions during an interview. But if I'm asked those questions, screw that company."

"I think we should have universal basic income for everyone. But I don't want to pay for it."

"It's okay to encourage whistleblowers, unless they are reporting on me. In that case, put them to jail and fine them please!"

The list goes on...

This applies to Wikileaks/Assange too:

"It's ok to demand transparency from other organizations but my organization is going to be secretive."

"It's ok to release the contents of other peoples emails but I don't want people looking in my inbox."

"It's ok to demand accountability for other people's crimes but I'm going to live in an embassy for years to avoid my own trial."

Also the irony that is a South American country saying "We will not interfere with the US electoral process" when the United States has backed coups, rebellions, drug wars, etc., in efforts to manipulate theirs...

Don't get me wrong, the high ground is endearing. Except it apparently took a call from John Kerry to do so.

In many cases, the US has only had the support of a few, in some cases minuscule number of people. In many cases they had no consent from either the government or the populace.

Your example implies that the US was only in South America at the behest of the countries in question to do _their_ bidding, not the US's.

"Manipulate"

I thought my wording was strong enough, but yes absolutely what you said.

"Would you feel the same way if things were being released about Trump? "

I would. The election campaigns are manipulative enough as is. I don't want hackers in our election machines or running smear campaigns targeted on one candidate.

> I don't want hackers in our election machines or running smear campaigns targeted on one candidate.

Those two things are not comparable. Hacking election machines to actually change the vote is not what is happening. People are finding information and releasing it. So in your view the Billy Bush tape should have been suppressed? Should all negative campaign ads be stopped? Should MSNBC and FOX news be taken off the air for a period before the election?

It's a slippery slope we head down when talking about not having information released.

So you would rather that all people (not just you) have less information for making a a massive decision that will influence the future of the country for 4 years?

Americans had all the information they needed with Hillary's voting record and Trump's business record plus their prior behavior toward America in general and individual human beings. I filtered them out early based on these things in favor of early candidates who actually did things that benefited their constituents with less damaging corruption. What people do vs what they say, how they dress, whatever superficial crap. It's my radical theory on getting better politicians. That people care what professional liars with damaging, track records are promising them is the problem.

That's they've both openly mocked and might fight many key freedoms I have from speech to search/seizure to due process means I'm certainly not putting either in control of FBI, DHS, IRS, DOD, etc. I'm voting for whoever is left on the ballot besides them in protest. I don't need to know anything more about them. I'm barely watching the election debates as they're just embarrassing.

Well said. In that we can agree.