Neither do I, but I hate authoritarianism (and hypocrisy) even more. People are free to have different opinions than mine, and I will defend their right to do so.
People are free to have their opinions, that doesn't mean you need to fund them. If you don't at least on some level agree with the politics, why are you giving them your money?
I fear you're hopelessly blind to your hypocrisy, there is no way you are only giving your money to people you agree with politically.
And there is more to life than politics, even though I feel it's hard to understand in the current hysterical climate of social media echo chambers and US politics. It is honestly terrifying to live in a world where most hope everyone else would conform and have the exact same perspective of the world as them, else they get accused of wrongthink.
> there is no way you are only giving your money to people you agree with politically
Obviously not. And?
> And there is more to life than politics
Obviously. And?
> have the exact same perspective of the world as them, else they get accused of wrongthink
Who am I accusing of wrongthink? Who am I requiring to conform to my exact perspective? Am I not free to chose who to give my money to? Is it not my choice to base my decision on whatever I want? Is it somehow unethical to base that choice on public information?
> People are free to have different opinions than mine, and I will defend their right to do so.
You don't seem very eager to defend my right to the opinion that giving money to Mullvad is bad. You seem to consider that specific opinion to be "authoritarian". Why?
For the record, I don't use a VPN because they are (all) useless snake oil.
I remain a happy Mullvad user.