4 ms·

Mullvad and Daniel Berntsson's Failed Cleanup

32 points by speckx 4mo ago

addedGone 4mo ago
> We cannot separate ethics from technology. Huh, yes, we can, writer's have the direct proof and still refuse to acknowledge it, aka that Mullvad, a COMPANY meaning a separated entity from the founders is doing great things for humanity, which proves that we can separate but still writer is obsessed with one of the shareholder and imply that Mullvad itself isn't an ethical company despite the contrary proven by multiple external auditors. This blog is honestly terrible, it seems that the writer is race-obsessed, half the articles are stuff about race, weird gender ideology, veganism, nazism... it literally feels like the garbage we see on Reddit, aggregated and parroted without substance, writer isn't proposing a solution to anything, he is just defaming people and companies and feels extremely judgmental, it's not at all accepting opinions of other people, it's imposing that the world has to be writer's way else it's wrong.
- geonic 4mo ago
  Thank you for this voice of reason.
- huslage 4mo ago
  In spite of what you might think, Nazi sympathizers do not have valid opinions and should be shunned by everyone.
  - akktor 4mo ago
    > XYZ sympathizers do not have valid opinions and should be shunned by everyone Seems like something a nazi would say
  - addedGone 3mo ago
    Why would their opinion not be valid? If a "Nazi sympathizer" invent something, it's not valid, it doesn't exist? You don't make any sense.
    - zzgo 3mo ago
      Can you cite a Nazi opinion that you find valid?
      - addedGone 3mo ago
        I don't know any "current Nazi" so I can't say, but from history, it's pretty easy. Brilliant or useful ideas/work can come from morally monstrous or politically toxic people you know. Many people have done things that are very morally wrong (up to murder and so-on) and provide great things to the world, not that it "compensate" in anything, but both can be true at the same time (do bad & good at the same time, or during different life periods). You need to realize that millions at the time of Nazi regime were "Pro-Nazi", and many were scientists that invented great things, many were writers that wrote lasting pieces, many used their experience to actually to meaningful things later-on, such as avoiding that those terrible things re-occur, how do you explain this? Let me give you another example: Programs meant for homeless, drug addicts, criminals... are often managed by former criminals, and they turned their lives around and decided to actually contribute to society instead of continuing to do harm (or sometimes do both at the same time).
        em-bee 3mo ago
        interesting examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascual_Jordan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascual_Jordan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Stark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Stark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg also, traditional german blackletter and german handwriting were abolished by the nazis, so if we take this concept of complete rejection of any of their ideas seriously then germans should have gone back to the old forms after '45. attempts were actually made but failed and in hindsight i think going back would only have strengthened german nationalism as it appears to do today. imagine germany using blackletter today and you ask them: why don't you use normal print like everyone else? only to get the response: we can't, nazis tried that first, and therefore it's a bad idea.
        zzgo 3mo ago
        I didn't ask for a work, I asked for opinions. Can you name a Nazi opinion, current or historical, that you agree with? Preferably something that would make the average person say, "you know, that Nazi/those Nazis were right about that?" That is what huslage above was talking about, opinions, not works. I don't understand your pivot from opinions to works.
  - thefz 3mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96rebro_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96rebro_Party > Some key issues for the Örebro Party locally include strong secularism, a 30-hour workweek with retained pay, lowered wages for politicians, expanded social housing, abolishing preschool-fees, making public transport free of charge,[3] ending taxpayer funding of what it sees as wasteful sculptures, monuments and art and introducing free dental care.[4][5] Nationally the party has set out large-scale remigration, closing the Swedish borders to immigration, a stricter assimilation policy and ending taxes on energy and fuel as some of its key issues. Strict immigration policy does not equal nazis, sorry.
- akktor 4mo ago
  > We cannot separate ethics from technology. Watch me
- em-bee 3mo ago
  we can separate technology from ethics, but should we? and if yes, how do we do it? the problem is not that we couldn't, but that the debate around this seems to be polarized. either the separation is 100% or there is no separation at all. if we take google, amazon, etc, for example, clearly their products are of benefit to a lot of people but on the other side they do a lot of bad things too. if we didn't insist on separating ethics from technology then maybe more people would protest and refuse to use their tools and services. on the other hand, sometimes you are forced to use a tool because there are no alternatives, or because you can't afford to quit your job or reject a client over it. so some separation is necessary. mullvad is a milder case. the company is clearly doing something positive, and many just disagree with the personal actions/opinions of one of their founders. some people are comfortable to separate that and others are not. personally i would approach this from the question: how strongly do i want to send a message to this person that i am not ok with their actions. how strong i feel vs how much i depend on the tool/service will affect my choice.
ashleyn 4mo ago
I feel like the analysis missing here is whether or not the Örebro Party supports policy that would eventually undermine internet privacy and freedom of speech - two missions that would directly contradict Mullvad's core mission of being a log-free VPN, and thus call into question whether or not they can continue to be trusted in a field where the stakes are high. The other policies they support don't look encouraging when you consider correlates of parties in other countries, but they seem to have not declared an explicit position for or against censorship and privacy, and they also seem to be a party where others' correlates may not apply here.
- addedGone 3mo ago
  Exactly, it's not even talking about the right subject, it's a personal attack on one of the shareholder, a free one. Writer is literally implying that if you don't follow the opinion of someone, you must boycott all the companies he is affiliated with.
drcongo 3mo ago
The proletariat only have any power at all through strength in numbers. Rich people want them to fight with each other, because when they do that, they're powerless. Daniel Berntsson is rich - it's in his interests to stir up hate and division amongst the working classes, and what better way to do that than give a load of money to a party for whom that is raison d'être.
byyll 3mo ago
After every such story I see, I subscribe one more person to Mullvad.

32 points by speckx 4mo ago

> We cannot separate ethics from technology. Huh, yes, we can, writer's have the direct proof and still refuse to acknowledge it, aka that Mullvad, a COMPANY meaning a separated entity from the founders is doing great things for humanity, which proves that we can separate but still writer is obsessed with one of the shareholder and imply that Mullvad itself isn't an ethical company despite the contrary proven by multiple external auditors. This blog is honestly terrible, it seems that the writer is race-obsessed, half the articles are stuff about race, weird gender ideology, veganism, nazism... it literally feels like the garbage we see on Reddit, aggregated and parroted without substance, writer isn't proposing a solution to anything, he is just defaming people and companies and feels extremely judgmental, it's not at all accepting opinions of other people, it's imposing that the world has to be writer's way else it's wrong.

geonic 4mo ago
Thank you for this voice of reason.
huslage 4mo ago
In spite of what you might think, Nazi sympathizers do not have valid opinions and should be shunned by everyone.
- akktor 4mo ago
  > XYZ sympathizers do not have valid opinions and should be shunned by everyone Seems like something a nazi would say
- addedGone 3mo ago
  Why would their opinion not be valid? If a "Nazi sympathizer" invent something, it's not valid, it doesn't exist? You don't make any sense.
  - zzgo 3mo ago
    Can you cite a Nazi opinion that you find valid?
    - addedGone 3mo ago
      I don't know any "current Nazi" so I can't say, but from history, it's pretty easy. Brilliant or useful ideas/work can come from morally monstrous or politically toxic people you know. Many people have done things that are very morally wrong (up to murder and so-on) and provide great things to the world, not that it "compensate" in anything, but both can be true at the same time (do bad & good at the same time, or during different life periods). You need to realize that millions at the time of Nazi regime were "Pro-Nazi", and many were scientists that invented great things, many were writers that wrote lasting pieces, many used their experience to actually to meaningful things later-on, such as avoiding that those terrible things re-occur, how do you explain this? Let me give you another example: Programs meant for homeless, drug addicts, criminals... are often managed by former criminals, and they turned their lives around and decided to actually contribute to society instead of continuing to do harm (or sometimes do both at the same time).
      - em-bee 3mo ago
        interesting examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascual_Jordan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascual_Jordan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Stark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Stark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg also, traditional german blackletter and german handwriting were abolished by the nazis, so if we take this concept of complete rejection of any of their ideas seriously then germans should have gone back to the old forms after '45. attempts were actually made but failed and in hindsight i think going back would only have strengthened german nationalism as it appears to do today. imagine germany using blackletter today and you ask them: why don't you use normal print like everyone else? only to get the response: we can't, nazis tried that first, and therefore it's a bad idea.
      - zzgo 3mo ago
        I didn't ask for a work, I asked for opinions. Can you name a Nazi opinion, current or historical, that you agree with? Preferably something that would make the average person say, "you know, that Nazi/those Nazis were right about that?" That is what huslage above was talking about, opinions, not works. I don't understand your pivot from opinions to works.
- thefz 3mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96rebro_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96rebro_Party > Some key issues for the Örebro Party locally include strong secularism, a 30-hour workweek with retained pay, lowered wages for politicians, expanded social housing, abolishing preschool-fees, making public transport free of charge,[3] ending taxpayer funding of what it sees as wasteful sculptures, monuments and art and introducing free dental care.[4][5] Nationally the party has set out large-scale remigration, closing the Swedish borders to immigration, a stricter assimilation policy and ending taxes on energy and fuel as some of its key issues. Strict immigration policy does not equal nazis, sorry.
akktor 4mo ago
> We cannot separate ethics from technology. Watch me
em-bee 3mo ago
we can separate technology from ethics, but should we? and if yes, how do we do it? the problem is not that we couldn't, but that the debate around this seems to be polarized. either the separation is 100% or there is no separation at all. if we take google, amazon, etc, for example, clearly their products are of benefit to a lot of people but on the other side they do a lot of bad things too. if we didn't insist on separating ethics from technology then maybe more people would protest and refuse to use their tools and services. on the other hand, sometimes you are forced to use a tool because there are no alternatives, or because you can't afford to quit your job or reject a client over it. so some separation is necessary. mullvad is a milder case. the company is clearly doing something positive, and many just disagree with the personal actions/opinions of one of their founders. some people are comfortable to separate that and others are not. personally i would approach this from the question: how strongly do i want to send a message to this person that i am not ok with their actions. how strong i feel vs how much i depend on the tool/service will affect my choice.

ashleyn 4mo ago

I feel like the analysis missing here is whether or not the Örebro Party supports policy that would eventually undermine internet privacy and freedom of speech - two missions that would directly contradict Mullvad's core mission of being a log-free VPN, and thus call into question whether or not they can continue to be trusted in a field where the stakes are high. The other policies they support don't look encouraging when you consider correlates of parties in other countries, but they seem to have not declared an explicit position for or against censorship and privacy, and they also seem to be a party where others' correlates may not apply here.

addedGone 3mo ago
Exactly, it's not even talking about the right subject, it's a personal attack on one of the shareholder, a free one. Writer is literally implying that if you don't follow the opinion of someone, you must boycott all the companies he is affiliated with.

drcongo 3mo ago

The proletariat only have any power at all through strength in numbers. Rich people want them to fight with each other, because when they do that, they're powerless. Daniel Berntsson is rich - it's in his interests to stir up hate and division amongst the working classes, and what better way to do that than give a load of money to a party for whom that is raison d'être.

byyll 3mo ago

After every such story I see, I subscribe one more person to Mullvad.