4 ms·

How do you figure?

iAMkenough 3mo ago
Money that leaves your wallet and goes to Mullvad ends up funding politicians that believe non-whites shouldn’t have speech at all, as a personal choice by a top executive of the company. The company’s values aren’t reflected accurately if you believe your money is funding free speech regardless of race.
- fastball 3mo ago
  It's a company: the deal is that they help enable free speech of their customers, not everyone on earth or everyone in Sweden or anywhere else. A great litmus test for the (somewhat outrageous) claims in this thread: does Mullvad refuse to provide service to non-white immigrants in Sweden? If yes, then you have a point. If no, I do not think Mullvad is the entity that is confused in this situation.
miyoji 3mo ago
Do you typically start companies that are opposed to your values, or do you start companies that align with your values? If you are the co-CEO of a company, will you push it to align more with your values, or less? This isn't a company founded 300 years ago by a long-dead evil man in a business vertical completely unrelated to how it started, it's a baby company with the evil founder still actively involved at the highest level of management. Maybe you can regale me with epic stories about the companies you've worked at where the founder had no ability to influence the company and its values, but that's not been my experience at all, in any human organization anywhere.
- fastball 3mo ago
  Two things: 1. People definitely start companies with a certain set of values and behaviors (as a company) and do entirely separate things in their private life. This is trivially true. 2. I don't think the personal values and the business mission in this case are even in conflict. You can be a racist and support free speech / privacy. Indeed, I'd actually say the venn diagram of "racists" and "people who vociferously espouse free speech ideals" is more union than it is disjoint.
  - miyoji 3mo ago
    1. You can't separate it out that cleanly, your beliefs bleed into what you do, no matter who you are or what you believe, and vice versa. I also don't think people start companies that are in contradiction with their values, and they definitely don't remain co-CEOs of them. 2. I don't think they're in conflict, either, I think the company's values are the founders' values and I think those values have been revealed to be bad.
    - fastball 3mo ago
      You actually need to demonstrate that though. I have seen no evidence of Mullvad (again, as a company) behaving in a racist or anti-immigrant manner. Until that has been demonstrated, you cannot just say "this guy behaves this way so that is what his company does". Regardless you can always say "I don't want to give this company money because that indirectly is gonna funnel money to an anti-immigrant political party in Sweden", and that is a perfectly valid position to take. But a lot of people in this thread are clearly going a step further than that, ostensibly in an attempt to give them a greater sense of moral superiority than is necessarily deserved.
      - miyoji 3mo ago
        > Until that has been demonstrated, you cannot just say "this guy behaves this way so that is what his company does". No, actually, I can say that. I just did. I'll do it again: I think Mullvad is a bad company if they have the absolute lack of morality and foresight to keep this jerk on as co-CEO, his values must and will influence the company, and they won't get another penny of my money for as long as I live. You seem to think that my money should be spent according to your misguided and incorrect demands for rigor in my moral thinking, and that's just not how any of this works, buddy. The way it works is this: if Mullvad wants any of my money, they must prove to ME that they are not evil. The burden is entirely on them, as they want my money, not the other way around. I was entertaining this conversation because you seemed genuinely curious about my opinion initially. I now see that you're actually trying to police my morality and tell me what is or isn't justified about how I make my own moral choices. I am no longer interested in talking to you about this.

How do you figure?

Money that leaves your wallet and goes to Mullvad ends up funding politicians that believe non-whites shouldn’t have speech at all, as a personal choice by a top executive of the company. The company’s values aren’t reflected accurately if you believe your money is funding free speech regardless of race.

fastball 3mo ago
It's a company: the deal is that they help enable free speech of their customers, not everyone on earth or everyone in Sweden or anywhere else. A great litmus test for the (somewhat outrageous) claims in this thread: does Mullvad refuse to provide service to non-white immigrants in Sweden? If yes, then you have a point. If no, I do not think Mullvad is the entity that is confused in this situation.

miyoji 3mo ago

Do you typically start companies that are opposed to your values, or do you start companies that align with your values? If you are the co-CEO of a company, will you push it to align more with your values, or less? This isn't a company founded 300 years ago by a long-dead evil man in a business vertical completely unrelated to how it started, it's a baby company with the evil founder still actively involved at the highest level of management. Maybe you can regale me with epic stories about the companies you've worked at where the founder had no ability to influence the company and its values, but that's not been my experience at all, in any human organization anywhere.

fastball 3mo ago
Two things: 1. People definitely start companies with a certain set of values and behaviors (as a company) and do entirely separate things in their private life. This is trivially true. 2. I don't think the personal values and the business mission in this case are even in conflict. You can be a racist and support free speech / privacy. Indeed, I'd actually say the venn diagram of "racists" and "people who vociferously espouse free speech ideals" is more union than it is disjoint.
- miyoji 3mo ago
  1. You can't separate it out that cleanly, your beliefs bleed into what you do, no matter who you are or what you believe, and vice versa. I also don't think people start companies that are in contradiction with their values, and they definitely don't remain co-CEOs of them. 2. I don't think they're in conflict, either, I think the company's values are the founders' values and I think those values have been revealed to be bad.
  - fastball 3mo ago
    You actually need to demonstrate that though. I have seen no evidence of Mullvad (again, as a company) behaving in a racist or anti-immigrant manner. Until that has been demonstrated, you cannot just say "this guy behaves this way so that is what his company does". Regardless you can always say "I don't want to give this company money because that indirectly is gonna funnel money to an anti-immigrant political party in Sweden", and that is a perfectly valid position to take. But a lot of people in this thread are clearly going a step further than that, ostensibly in an attempt to give them a greater sense of moral superiority than is necessarily deserved.
    - miyoji 3mo ago
      > Until that has been demonstrated, you cannot just say "this guy behaves this way so that is what his company does". No, actually, I can say that. I just did. I'll do it again: I think Mullvad is a bad company if they have the absolute lack of morality and foresight to keep this jerk on as co-CEO, his values must and will influence the company, and they won't get another penny of my money for as long as I live. You seem to think that my money should be spent according to your misguided and incorrect demands for rigor in my moral thinking, and that's just not how any of this works, buddy. The way it works is this: if Mullvad wants any of my money, they must prove to ME that they are not evil. The burden is entirely on them, as they want my money, not the other way around. I was entertaining this conversation because you seemed genuinely curious about my opinion initially. I now see that you're actually trying to police my morality and tell me what is or isn't justified about how I make my own moral choices. I am no longer interested in talking to you about this.