6 ms·

I'm sorry to hear that. Yes, Daniel and I own 50% each. > obviously Berntsson has every right to his opinions and to express them Indeed. > and I also apprec

• SpaceNoodled 3mo ago
  Ironically, remigration is a means to achieve a monoculture.
  • remarkEon 3mo ago
    Not all monocultures are created equal.
• square_usual 3mo ago
  > As a workplace I'm glad we're not a monoculture of 100% like-minded individuals. But if you're tolerant of someone in your workplace that wants to make it a monoculture, and then succeeds in doing so, will you remain glad?
  • kfreds 3mo ago
    I've known Daniel for 20 years. He's one of the most empathetic individuals I know. Neither he nor I wants to make our workplace a monoculture. I get that you disagree with his choice, as do I. But please recognize that we've built this company together over 17 years. To suggest that you know better than me that he wants to create a monoculture at our workplace is ridiculous. I'm not sure why you're arguing this point though. It seems we both believe he made the wrong choice?
    • e40 3mo ago
      I've known pretty far right people that are empathetic. That doesn't matter, given what they support, though. I think you're focusing on the wrong thing. And given the party Daniel supports, saying he doesn't want a monoculture... it seems like you are being naive. There are lots and lots of right-wing people in the USA that over the years never said far right things... but their actions have shown a different story. I think you need to judge Daniel on his actions, not his words or your gut.
      • kfreds 3mo ago
        You set the focus. I was simply responding to your comment, same as I am now. Again, I'm not defending his choice, but no, I'm not being naive. Over the 20 years I've known him he has demonstrated his values through consistent words and actions. I'd share details but that's not my place to do. You may choose to believe me or not.
        • gozucito 3mo ago
          You're in a a shitty no-win situation. Your choices are to either end a 20 year friendship and enormously fruitful collaboration or defend someone who has demonstrated quite clearly that he holds repulsive, despicable beliefs. Imagine you were of immigrant background and your closest friend gave millions of dollars to a party whose sole platform is to strip you of citizenship and kick you out of your country.
          • cindyllm 3mo ago
            [dead]
          • deanishe 3mo ago
            Are you kidding? There was a large swing to Trump amongst Latinos in your last election. I have no idea why people assume immigrants are pro-immigration. They're pro-themselves.
            • 3mo ago
  • ramblerman 3mo ago
    > But if you're tolerant of someone in your workplace that wants to make it a monoculture, and then succeeds in doing so, will you remain glad? Isn't that exactly the argument Örebro would make about islam and europe.
  • TheArcane 3mo ago
    aka the paradox of tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
• LocutusOfBorges 3mo ago
  > Some believe this party is left-wing, others right-wing. Some approve of it, others don't. For a company that puts political principle so fundamentally at the core of its marketing strategy, it's astonishing to see this kind of stance being taken. The man who owns half the company seemingly choosing to funnel his share of its profits to a political party that advocates the mass deportation of people is, in that context, something with significant consequences. I understand how awkward the position you're in must be, but it's obscene to present this as somehow being a thing that one can be morally neutral on. In the context of rising fascism across the continent, it's dismaying to see a company that a lot of us rely on so decisively pick the worst possible side.
  • kfreds 3mo ago
    I was acknowledging gpvos position, as well as that of others, and then stating my own position on the matter. I as an individual understand that there are people who see this party as left-wing or right-wing. That doesn't mean I agree. I as an individual don't approve of this party or its rhetoric. Others do. None of this is Mullvad's official position. Mullvad only concerns itself with its mission. Our customers and employees represent a wide spectrum of opinions. You may not like some of them. Regardless, Mullvad's position is that privacy is a universal right, regardless of political affiliation. > I understand how awkward the position you're in must be Yes. Thank you.
    • GuinansEyebrows 3mo ago
      > Mullvad's position is that privacy is a universal right this is kind of a confusing statement considering the source. if you hold that privacy is a universal right, but you profit from gating access to it (along with someone who appears to have directed this profit to an appalling political project), are you saying that this right should only be afforded to those who pay for it? or are you just cloaking your business model in a moral shroud?
      • kfreds 3mo ago
        > are you saying that this right should only be afforded to those who pay for it Not at all. When we say we believe privacy is a universal right, we're saying that e.g. states and corporations that actively violate your privacy are in the wrong. We're not saying that Mullvad, you or anyone else are obligated to work for free in order to provide privacy as a service. Does that make sense?
• chinathrow 3mo ago
  Time for a new VPN co then, right?
• gpvos 3mo ago
  I would like to add one note: if I were an activist in Iran, or in any other way my livelihood would depend on strong privacy services, I might keep using your service and even be (slightly) more certain of the company's resolve to keep my privacy protected. Although I would be very aware of the irony. But choosing for one's own safety can override other concerns. Very few things in life are black and white.
  • kfreds 3mo ago
    Indeed. What I hear you saying is that you recognize there is a kind of consistency, and benefit, to Mullvad's position. I'll admit holding the line like this, when most people don't understand the nuance, and most of those who do don't value it, is irrational from a business perspective. Then again we founded the company because of our political convictions about free speech, free press, privacy, mass surveillance and censorship. I respect your choice to leave, and also appreciate that we're both making an effort to understand each other. I wish all disagreements were like this.
    • nerdsniper 3mo ago
      If y’all were maximally “business-rational” you would have taken the NPV of under-anonymizing your customers already and selling the data. Sure, it would tank the business in the long run but the short term profits could probably have been re-invested in the stock market or other endeavors for excellent returns. Plus once the reputation hit started coming home to roost you could have sold Mullvad to one of those large VPN umbrella holding companies. I’m upset about this to, but honestly I don’t know what other VPN holds Mullvad’s reputation for genuine anonymity. When I learned that y’all take cash by mail, I realized that is fundamentally incompatible with bundling and selling customers data.
  • AliChraghi 3mo ago
    Iranians use VPNs simply because they want to access the internet. Mullvad services are too expensive for what average people make so i don't think it really matters.
• e40 3mo ago
  Who sees the party as left wing? Its seems like a disingenuous argument to make.
  • kfreds 3mo ago
    My understanding is that the party leader, Markus Allard, is basing his political ideology on some new kind of Marxist analysis. You can read more about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markus_Allard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markus_Allard
    • gozucito 3mo ago
      After thinking about it, my advice is to start a new company with the rest of Mullvad folks who don't support this: Markus Allard has voiced support for the idea of large scale remigration on multiple occasions. On one occasion, in a debate with a Liberal member of parliament, he asked why the Liberal party "does not wish to deport 100 000 social welfare-Somalis?"[19] In the same debate Allard also claimed that "Sweden belongs to the Swedes. We have to make sure that we take care of our own damn people and we must deport these damn parasites who sit and live at our expense."[20] Regarding deporting those born in Sweden, Allard said in a podcast that "They will also be forced to leave, even if they are born in Sweden, because they have no natural connection to Sweden. They are not Swedish." I will be happy to continue giving you my money then. Keep in mind the situation also sucks for all of us who have been recommending Mullvad for year, only for our money to go towards that kind of hatred. It is a betrayal. Now I have to start advising against it and explaining the money goes to neo nazis.
    • deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
• jlokier 3mo ago
  > the possibility that Daniel and I are able to keep our personal opinions separate from the mission of our company This isn't about opinions. Very large political financing is not a mere opinion. It has a much larger material effect. I don't think it's possible to separate "mission of our company" from "large scale political financing", for purely structural reasons. I think the legal and fiduciary concept of Conflict of Interest is relevant here, but perhaps only by analogy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest is quite informative. In some business, political and legal roles, we deem certain structural relations to be a conflict of interest regardless of what people on those roles actually do.. The mere potential for excessive improper influence arising from the structure of their relationships and roles is what creates the deemed conflict. As the owners of a company making substantial profit like Mullvad, you always had the potential capability to financially influence political outcomes on a scale which most your customers cannot, in ways that may seriously harm some of your customers and to be potentially against the stated mission of your company. I think the relationship between running a company with an openly advertised public mission, or even an implied mission in the minds of customers, while in another role (wealthy private citizen) being able to make a substantial material action against the same mission, should be recognised as inherently a conflict of interest. But obviously it's one we can't avoid, as long as we allow people to get rich from a mission-driven company. What we can do, is recognise that if someone actually takes a large material action against the company's mission, then they have gone a step further and demonstrated the conflict of interest. We generally favour free speech, including political donations. But when the money for very large political financing comes mostly from customers who, by virtue of the advertising and marketing of the company's mission, are led to believe they are supporting the company's mission? In my view, at that point the customers are being tricked into paying for something while their money is paying for something else which opposes the thing they thought they were funding. At the least, it should be dealt with in a similar way that conflicts of interest are dealt with when, for example, directing multiple companies: By making sure everyone knows, so other people are able to consent or not on the major conflict issues those other people might have a view on. The analogy for customers is their consent shown by their informed decision to become or remain customers. In Mullvad's situation, that would mean Mullvad should explain to customers, embedded clearly within it's public marketing of the company missions and values, that one of its current major owners receiving customer funds by way of profit, is the main financier of a political party which sponsors remigration in Sweden. Because that is clearly a thing some customers care about when evaluating whether to pay for Mullvad's services from now on. You know that, I know that, so there's no legitimate excuse for not letting customers who would care know. Then, as you said, customers will be free to choose.
• prmoustache 3mo ago
  The thing is, you can't be pro freedom of speech and pro privacy yet support right wing extremists. They are totally against that. It can only means that Daniel is setting up a trap with Mullvad.
• aarjaneiro 3mo ago
  Is your buddy incapable of speaking on his own behalf? Im sure he's aware of the reputational damage he's caused your company by now...