[kfreds]

I'm sorry to hear that. I'm not defending his choice, but consider reading Daniel's rationale in the Flamman article. There's also his blog [1], which explains some of his views. I know he doesn't share all of Örebropartiets views, but I should let him provide that nuance.

As I said in another comment, speaking for myself, I don’t like that he made this donation and I know this view is shared by many of my colleagues.

[1]: https://dberntsson.info

[animuchan]

I wonder if by this thread's logic, it is now my turn to virtue signal as if I'm leaving Mullvad as a customer, because now you said that don't like someone else's freedom of conscience, and I value freedom of conscience.

Such a bad place we're in: people say they value "freedom", but then you can't choose you own political representation without being witch-hunted to death by the same "freedom" group.

(I honestly think that the perfect response in this case would be to support the cofounder, if anything, to make their own choices, and refuse to hate on the person's political leaning. But alas, the chains of freedom are super heavy.)

[asdewqqwer]

At 21 century, especially on a topic regarding Europe, I thought we should have long learnt the lesson from how problematic Legal Positivism and naive "freedom" is from Weimarer Republik‘s constitution.

In short, freedom should at least maintain the capability of preserving basic poltical freedom. From my understanding of that party, they are clearly against other people's existing political freedom.

[animuchan]

That group is against our political freedoms, so we're naturally against their political freedoms. Are we just doing tribalism and then intellectualizing? (I don't know what the answer is, but I fear it's a resounding "yup".)

[sierisimo]

Its the tolerance paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Not bare tribalism, just trying to keep everyone's freedom.

[bingoMen]

The same applies to people who say they support freedom but are then opposed to immigration because their concept of freedom is tied to wealth, privileges, and the preservation of those things. But that has little to do with freedom. We are only free when everyone is free.

[kfreds]

> The same applies to people who say they support freedom but are then opposed to immigration

Indeed. Open borders is the ideal. That's also one of the views that Daniel and I share.

[lightbritefight]

The primary financier of a political party that calls immigrants "parasites" does not support open borders.

Claming otherwise is at a minimum disengious, but with absolutly no clarification from Daniel directly, it just reads like you are lying about his stances for PR.

[kfreds]

> The primary financier of a political party that calls immigrants "parasites" does not support open borders.

It's his ideal. He states in the Flamman article that it is unfortunately not possible due to mismanagement by the Swedish government.

> clarification from Daniel directly

Read the Flamman article and read his blog. I've linked to it elsewhere in this thread. You can choose to believe me or not.

[lightbritefight]

I can't find the link youre referring to in the vague chaos of this thread, but based on his current donations to a virulently anti immigrant party, it sure seems like your partners feelings have changed about open boarders since it was written. Why is he unable to speak for himself on this matter?

If open boarders are only acceptable when you can refuse immigration based on ethnicity, then no, you do not support open borders. When you work to forcably eject not only first but second generation immigrants, people born in Sweden, based on their ethnicity, you do not support open borders.

The above looks to be a core tenat of Daniel's prefered political party based on their own statements, so its extremely disengious to discuss some old article about supporting free movement while he's actively donating to people who want to brutalize hundred of thousands of Swedish residents because they are the "wrong type" of people.

[owebmaster]

> You can choose to believe me or not.

You are choosing to ignore that OP and many more people don't believe that otherwise this thread would not even exist.

[cmsj]

"witch-hunted to death" is a fairly generous interpretation of "I am no longer going to be a Mullvad customer" don't you think?

[ksec]

>without being witch-hunted

I still remember in 2013 to 2021 when this was happening in the US and wider internet on twitter and reddit. A lot of people in Europe / AUS / NZ thought it was some soup opera made up by the internet's few.

[latexr]

> soup opera

Slight note, it’s soap opera. They got that name because the original sponsors were soap manufacturers.

[ksec]

LOL yes. It was a typo.

[chlorion]

I don't think you understand what these people view as "freedom".

This isn't a simple difference in political beliefs, they believe that certain groups of people are basically subhuman and don't deserve basic human rights.

How can you support that?

It seems there are a lot of far-right extremest trolls/psychopaths on hacker news. What a disgrace.

[throwaway85825]

>I don’t like that he made this donation and I know this view is shared by many of my colleagues.

Its a strange world now where everyone is expected to have a public opinion on everyone else's opinions to keep them in line. Very anti privacy, anti freedom, and against plurality of opinion.

[Eupolemos]

I'm sorry - you're saying that having a public opinion on another person's opinion is against the plurality of opinion?

[davidee]

I didn't read it that way (but I can see multiple possible readings).

Here's my interpretation: When someone has a shitty public opionion, we force others to MAKE PUBLIC their opinions.

And because our society is so polarized, we don't talk about opinions or their nuances; we reduce them to binary views (it's possible they are but not always), we pick a side and we light our torches.

[ranger_danger]

> we pick a side and we light our torches

Some people do that, yes, but I'd argue most simply don't care enough.

[pc86]

Then why does this thread have 1800 comments when most HN threads have a small fraction of that? Half of them are just people virtue signaling that they're no longer paying for this VPN service.

[ranger_danger]

Since davidee mentioned society, I assumed we were speaking in general and not relative to HN.

[animuchan]

This thread reads as an example of anything BUT plurality of opinion -- most of the people here never in their lives considered that the country in question has political discourse at all, and what's going on in there politically, so no opinion was ever present.

Furthermore, consider that the opinion-like discourse is clearly performative. We all know what the correct virtue signaling looks like, and we know that we need to ruin every person not doing the correct virtue signaling.

So it's less of a plurality-of-opinion situation, and more of a direct-democracy situation: a lynch mob.

(Not saying it's good or bad btw -- not my circus, not my monkeys. Just dishonest to say we love some sort of plurality while doing this I think.)

[kfreds]

To be fair there are also many examples in this thread of courteous, empathetic and intellectual discourse, where people agree to disagree.

Relatively speaking HN is an oasis compared to other platforms. Which makes me wonder, are there forums with an even higher quality than HN?

[ranger_danger]

That's an interesting idea, and not one I have seen implemented yet.

I think the biggest hurdle for something like that would be selecting and keeping enough like-minded moderators to enforce the quality.

[owebmaster]

Depends on what you call quality. Not sure if eloquent people defending repugnant politics and views = high quality

[throwaway85825]

Largely offline and informal.

[surgical_fire]

That's... Not really what is happening here.

The guy who made the donation is entitled to his opinions. No one is questioning his right to make a donation.

People are, however, that by paying for the services of a company he owns, they are as a second order effect financing politics they find repugnant.

[jonnybgood]

No, it's not everyone and it's always been this way. Nobody really cares about the opinion of random strangers.

People care about the opinions of those they're invested in (emotionally, politically, financially, etc.) and it's those opinions they want to know. People want to associate with those who share their values. It has always been this way.

[gruelsandwich]

Really fighting windmills with the hot takes about things that aren't true. "Sweden actually has a hidden wealth tax" and "The money supply is the real inflation!!"

Really in line with typical views of right-leaning people you see on X etc.

[SZJX]

Curious, what’s exactly not true about these? The Nordic (and Central European) countries are surely not friendly to people accumulating wealth, and it’s a widely known fact that monetary supply got out of control especially since Covid. Data about it are all available in public.

[gpm]

> I'm not defending his choice, but consider reading Daniel's rationale

This is literally defending his choice. More than that it is providing direct support to the views you are apparently trying to distance yourself from by suggesting people read literature in favour of them - not in a context where they even see opposing arguments.

But as a fun aside to the people debating that his views aren't right wing... consider this quote from the aforementioned blog (translation made via firefox's swedish to english model)

> A building permit officer at a municipal city building office is primarily dedicated to preventing, making it difficult, costly, delayed and uneasy construction. He causes great damage and thus produces negative value, but still also receives his salary from the tax of others and is thus supported by others.

Can we get more right wing than claiming that imposing standards on industry so they don't go around building death traps that kill people to save a few bucks "causes great damage and thus produces negative value". Not even as an argument that this particular office is overly restrictive, but just as a statement about building permit officers in general.

[int_19h]

How did we get to the point where suggesting that you hear out what someone has to say for themselves get equated to "literally defending his choice"?

I'm very far left myself, but I hate this tendency to equate any intellectual engagement with the right wing thought whatsoever with support. It's almost as if rightist politics were some kind of cooties that you catch simply by being in the same room or something.

[ksec]

>I'm very far left myself,

I know it is now an internet meme, but those who considered themselves far left 10 years ago would no be a moderate.

[int_19h]

Only if your definition of "far left" was taken from the likes of Fox and Breitbart, who apply this label to anyone left of Clinton, more or less.

I'm a libertarian socialist though. And by "socialism" I mean all that stuff about the means of production etc, not higher taxes. As far as I'm concerned, the American mainstream left is still closer to American mainstream right than they are to my views.

[Lerc]

I would characterise myself as being very left. Yet people who I perceive as to the right of me perceive themselves as much further left.

I have always considered compassion the driving force underlying left wing views. I really can't understand the mind of the spiteful left, it seems such a contradiction of values.

[ranger_danger]

As for those on the far-left, it's like they want to be their own kind of fascist while also proclaiming to be anti-fascist.

[int_19h]

"Far left" can mean a lot of different things, but generally it means far left economic positions (on matters such as property rights, for example). This is orthogonal to authoritarianism though - yes, there's absolutely a large authoritarian left wing tendency, the "tankies", but on the whole in the West various libertarian takes (anarchism, most obviously, but as with right libertarianism there are degrees here) dominate.

[tremon]

> It's almost as if rightist politics were some kind of cooties

Rightist politics may not be, but rightist rhetoric surely is. Consider GW Bush' statement "if you're not with us, you're against us" (or the 2025 equivalent "either you support genocide, or you're an antisemite"): where is the room for intellectual engagement in statements such as these?

Your suggested "intellectual engagement" with absolute positions such as these serves absolutely no other purpose than to lend them an air of legitimacy. There absolutely exist rationales that do not deserve to be "heard" or "considered".

Or put another way:

  "Let's meet in the middle", says the unjust man.
  You take a step forward; the unjust man takes a step back.
  "Let's meet in the middle", says the unjust man.

[account42]

The irony is palpable.

[tremon]

It's amazing isn't it, how a single thought-terminating cliché can so easily inspire others?

[int_19h]

> Consider GW Bush' statement "if you're not with us, you're against us" (or the 2025 equivalent "either you support genocide, or you're an antisemite"): where is the room for intellectual engagement in statements such as these?

Why are you considering them, then?

> There absolutely exist rationales that do not deserve to be "heard" or "considered".

How do you know which ones are those if you never hear or consider them?

The practical application of the principle that you espouse is that someone has to intellectually engage with these things, and then decide on behalf of the rest of us proles whether we should be "allowed to lend them the air of legitimacy" or not.

To that I say: there's no socialism without freedom, and there's no freedom in general without freedom to think for yourself and make your own judgments. Any ideology that purports to restrict that is inherently authoritarian, whether on the left or on the right, and should be fought tooth and nail.

[scottyah]

Back in my day, the right wing was "conservative" and used to be the ones making the permitting processes to slow down "progress".

[gpm]

Using regulations and permitting to improve safety, living conditions, and similar things to support people has always been left wing.

Using regulations and permitting to discriminate against people who you don't like is a long standing right wing tactic, but isn't the nature of the complaint I quoted above.

[xhkkffbf]

Really? If someone passes a law that criminalizes the activity of migrants, they say they're doing it to improve safety and living conditions. But it seems like the current people in the left-wing tent hate restrictions on migrants and view such regulations as racist.

[McDyver]

> As I said in another comment, speaking for myself, I don’t like that he made this donation and I know this view is shared by many of my colleagues.

Maybe there's a case to distance Mullvad from him, then. Not taking a stand is also a political choice.

[kfreds]

Consider GWB's "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." For and against are not always the only options. Sometimes there are nuances, or other concerns.

Daniel made this decision as a private individual. Some of his colleagues (including me) dislike it as private individuals.

I recognize that the amount as well as his position of power within the company (co-founder, co-owner, co-CEO) make people who disapprove more uncomfortable than if it had been a much lower amount from a regular employee.

However, as others have argued, what would happen if Mullvad started weighing in on politics unrelated to its mission?

Better to see Mullvad almost like a force of nature: Mullvad believes privacy is a universal right. You might disagree but at least it's consistent, and I'd argue that's one path to trustworthiness - you know how we're likely to treat you as a customer. (equally, regardless of your political affiliation)

Obviously everyone is free to make their own choice on whether they like this stance or not.

[kqp]

Thank you for taking this stance. It is the mature, intellectual, and virtuous one, and with it you are on civilization’s side.

The US is currently in a very bad place politically. It’s visible not just in politicians, but in everybody’s minds, all the time. A person who believes they’re fighting for their life obsesses over “us vs them”, and forgets their every principle and even most reasoning, until the fight is over. When we spit on your principles, please know that they are our principles, too, we just are not currently well enough to remember it.

[maximilianburke]

You can say Mullvad is apolitical all you want but the problem is money paid to Mullvad is eventually ending up in the hands of Örebropartiet by way of Daniel directing his compensation into his donations.

[HDBaseT]

He didn't say Mullvad is a apolitical, in fact, he said Mullvad is inherently political because they fight for freedom of speech, freedom of information and the right to privacy.

You are saying something incongruent with what kfreds said!

[maximilianburke]

Allow me to reword, using 'kfreds phrasing.

"Mullvad is weighing in on politics unrelated to its privacy mission because money given to Mullvad is eventually ending up in the hands of Örebropartiet by way of Daniel directing his compensation into his donations."

There, better?

The crux of what I'm saying is that if you give money to Mullvad you are giving money to Örebropartiet, and that's unchanged by the first part of the statement.

[8ytecoder]

I know what you’re saying sounds perfectly rational to you and I do applaud you for holding the moral position separating someone’s private life from their contribution to the company. But, think about the number of people who were let go for far less controversial actions. At some point an officer of the company doing things in their personal life becomes a distraction to the company’s goals. My question is, would you act differently if this person were not a co-founder?

[JuniperMesos]

If Mullvad fired an ordinary employee for donating to an anti-immigration party or pressured them into not donating, I would absolutely find a new VPN provider that doesn't do this over it.

[kfreds]

As would I. That doesn't seem like a nice workplace. I'm pretty sure it's illegal too, at least in Sweden.

[Gerharddc]

For sure, and I think most people would agree with this. However, I also think most people treat it differently when it is someone so high up because they have a lot of control and, more importantly, accumulate a large part of the profit.

I don't think you should not be allowed to have strong political opinions in such a position. I just think that in this case, it is very dangerous to express so much support for them in such a public way. I say this because (from my perspective at least) a large part of Mullvad's "competitive advantage" is their brand image, and it just feels that a link to controversial politics probably does more harm than good to this brand image.

[Akronymus]

If the donations were to the opposite end of the political spectrum, do you think there would be a similar amount of backlash?

[kfreds]

> would you act differently if this person were not a co-founder?

I have several colleagues who I'm fairly certain are anarcho-syndicalists, meaning they want to abolish the state and capitalism. I don't know about my colleagues, but in general anarcho-syndicalists seek to bring about their vision through organising trade unions, and use that to seize control of the means of production and distribution. I on the other hand am clearly a capitalist pig seeking to oppress my workforce. Why else would I invite them to join me on the barricades against mass surveillance and censorship? Shared values around privacy? :P

I have no business questioning which demonstrations my colleagues participate in, or what they write on their blog. As long as they are not actively malicious against me, our workplace, or their fellow coworkers.

It's getting late, maybe I'm missing something in my description. I guess that's a rough approximation of how I feel about tolerating differences of opinion.

[actionfromafar]

Your employees are very far from achieving such ambitious goals. You don't seem to realize how much power you, and your co-founder do have vs them.

Any reflections on the book https://howisincorruptiblegoing.com/ ?

[kfreds]

> Your employees are very far from achieving such ambitious goals.

Again, I have no idea if any of my colleagues actually subscribe to such ideals. I was simply commenting on tolerating differences of opinion. There's also a difference between empathy/understanding and sympathy/agreement.

> You don't seem to realize how much power you, and your co-founder do have vs them.

Perhaps. I've thought about that many times. I'm pretty sure I understand it well intellectually, but I have little experience actually being an employee myself. What experience I have was almost two decades ago. I'd love to hear more about what you mean. What did I say that suggests I don't understand? Was it the "capitalist pig" joke? I was trying to inject some tongue-in-cheek humour, but waking up this morning I regret writing it, as it has little to do with the point I was trying to make. Unfortunately by then it was too old to edit. If it's something else, please tell me.

What I try to do is imagine how I would want to be treated by someone who has hard power over me, in the way an employer ultimately does over their employees. I read books and research on the subject, watch videos, listen to podcasts, learn from mentors, and I've refined my leadership philosophy over the course of the past 17 years.

I aspire to give all of my colleagues a maximum of autonomy. My approach is something like this:

1. The right person, in the right role, with the right manager. 2. Establish and refine a mutual understanding of goals, strategies, and expectations. 3. Delegate to the greatest possible extent.

The right person is roughly someone who has integrity, drive, competence and is easy to communicate with. By integrity I mean someone who admits when they are wrong and tells me when I'm wrong. Drive comes in many shapes (tech nerd, building a team, "just" a good work ethic, or simply wanting to put food on the table) - all of which are perfectly fine drives. Basically I want colleagues that care about something, anything. Competence means being able to perform their job role.

The more you have 1 and 2, the easier it is to build a mutually high-trust relationship, and a long-term collaboration with increasing autonomy.

Ultimately trust is about willingly being vulnerable to someone or something. I think that is why some of my colleagues are upset right now. They see Daniel's donation as a breach of that trust. I get that, and I feel for them.

> Any reflections on the book https://howisincorruptiblegoing.com/ ?

I haven't read it, but I've heard of it. What little I know, it sounds in line with what Daniel and I have done. Here's our ownership directive: https://mullvad.net/en/blog/ownership-and-future-mullvad-vpn

As we write in the article: """We started building this organization in the summer of 2008 for idealistic reasons, and we are still idealists who think privacy is fundamental to a civilized society.

The best strategy for achieving societal impact through entrepreneurship is consistent, long-term, and value-based ownership. For us, this disqualifies taking outside investment, either through venture capital or going public. Mullvad has instead been growing organically without outside investments. It takes longer but the results are better."""

If I understand correctly, Ries is arguing that the more valuable a company is, the more tempting it becomes to extract that value. Sure, that's why it is important to have principled and long-term shareholders. An organisation's long-term strategic behavior necessarily tries to converge on its goals, set by its shareholders. I recognize that most companies are owned by shareholders who seek to eventually increase their personal wealth. I also recognize that principles almost always get to take a back seat if they cost the shareholders too much money.

Personally I reject the U.S. 1970s corporate law doctrine that the only legitimate purpose of a company is maximizing returns to its shareholders. That's ridiculous. In the case of Mullvad its mission is related to privacy, mass surveillance and censorship, in large part because we believe privacy and the absence of mass surveillance and censorship are part of the foundation of a healthy and thriving society.

As for extracting value to benefit me personally, I don't intend to accrue more than I need. I think I've reached the point where I'm satisfied with my lifestyle and the buffer I have. I've stopped playing the stock market, and instead placed my savings in long-term investments which require a minimum of attention. I'd rather do other things with my time. Obviously I'm also confident in my future earning potential should I catastrophically lose both my company and a large portion of my savings. It is very freeing and I recognize how rare and useful it is to be able to act in line with your values without concern for economic impact. I think it allows me to make better long-term strategic decisions about our companies.

Mostly I just want to maximize my contribution to society. I've toyed with the idea of placing my shares in Mullvad and my other companies in a foundation with some kind of open-source mission. I've also reached out to various non-profits and talked to tax advisors about abstaining from dividends, and have them sent directly to those non-profits. We'll see.

I don't do this for the money anymore. I do it because it is important to me. I wonder if a lot of people commenting or trying to apply social pressure assume that we're worried about the company losing value. Of course I would be sad if colleagues or a lot of customers left us, as I care immensely about both. That doesn't mean I'm willing to betray my principles, or in this case betray Mullvad's mission.

I hope I've managed to answer most of your questions. Please tell me more about what I should do to better understand the power I have over my colleagues, as their employer. What am I missing? Thank you.

[smokedetector1]

You don’t consider supporting “remigration”, aka forced expulsion of non-white-skinned people, to be actively malicious? What if he was physically going door to door and assaulting immigrants? Would that also be out of scope for you?

[drakonka]

Of course the distinction itself is important in its own way, but I think/hope everyone here fully realizes and accepts that he technically donated as a private individual. You can clearly see it from the headline - it does not say "Mullvad VPN AB is the main financer of the Swedish Örebro party", after all. For those who have an issue supporting Mullvad after this, that is unlikely to be the point of contention. The issue seems to be simply in this case, some people clearly find the private individual's actions objectionable enough to not want to support a product that individual is deeply associated with, profits from (and then funnels those profits into said actions), etc. Fixating on this being done as a private individual just comes off like a bit of a deflection attempt from a pretty straightforward case of individual actions having consequences.

[kfreds]

> I think/hope everyone here fully realizes and accepts that he technically donated as a private individual

In this forum, yes. Unfortunately there are lots of people who don't care to inform themselves in the least. During the weekend my impression was that most people assumed Mullvad only had one founder, owner and CEO. Some people were implying that Mullvad's workforce supported this, which of course is ridiculous. I don't want to be associated with this donation. Then there are the people who think he donated 5 million USD or EUR. Sigh.

It would be nice if people didn't resort to make things up, and instead expressed their disapprovement based on fact. That's what I'm doing. As are several of my colleagues.

> The issue seems to be simply in this case, some people clearly find the private individual's actions objectionable enough to not want to support a product that individual is deeply associated with

Yes, that is clear.

> Fixating on this being done as a private individual just comes off like a bit of a deflection attempt from a pretty straightforward case of individual actions having consequences.

Ah, thanks. That was not my intent. For sure an individual's actions has consequences, especially when you're in a position of power. In this case people are holding Daniel accountable by switching providers. They are acting according to their beliefs. That's fine.

Meanwhile I am also trying to clarify Mullvad's position on the matter. Many people understand it and still disagree. That's also fine.

[Hikikomori]

And if the Örebro party decides it wants chat control or similar things? Will Daniels privacy principles stand or will it bend to suit his likely stronger beliefs in anti immigration? Has he made similar contributions to parties against chat control?

[kfreds]

> And if the Örebro party decides it wants chat control or similar things?

Then Mullvad would oppose it. I mean, the party is insignificant compared to the other parties in Sweden, so I wouldn't want to call them out specifically. It would be weird to give such a small party attention on our blog. If a journalist were to email us and ask about it explicitly that's another question. Of course Mullvad would oppose it.

> Will Daniels privacy principles stand

I would be very surprised if they didn't.

> or will it bend to suit his likely stronger beliefs in anti immigration?

What makes you say that? He's worked 17 years on building Mullvad, which is worth far more than 5 million SEK.

> Has he made similar contributions to parties against chat control?

Not to my knowledge.

[ignoramous]

> Mullvad believes privacy is a universal right. You might disagree but at least it's consistent ...

Is privacy inconsistent with right to dignity, liberty, and equality?

[fzeroracer]

> However, as others have argued, what would happen if Mullvad started weighing in on politics unrelated to its mission?

A bit too late for that now, isn't it? Extreme anti-immigration stances have always been associated with anti-privacy because eventually those stances evolve into state apparatuses designed to identify dissidents and targets for deportation. What will you do when the party your co-founder supports eventually demands stripping away privacy for the sake of finding 'terrorists'? Trying to hold this thin veneer of apoliticalism outside of your privacy stance is a remarkably foolish one and one that most people can identify. Especially those who saw that progression occur in real time.

[honeycrispy]

> Maybe there's a case to distance Mullvad from him, then. Not taking a stand is also a political choice.

They are making a stand. This stance that they've taken has made me decide that I'm switching from another VPN provider TO Mullvad. Not many people have the backbone to actually stand behind freedom of speech when it may cost them something. It's very admirable.

[JuniperMesos]

Depending on what your current VPN provider is, this might be a good idea anyway.

[applfanboysbgon]

Purchasing political power has zero relation to freedom of speech.