Top
Best
New

Posted by Risse 22 hours ago

The CEO of Mullvad is the main financer of the Swedish Örebro party(det.social)
604 points | 1352 commentspage 13
daneel_w 16 hours ago|
To the people using Mullvad I have two sincere and unpopular questions: do you actively scrutinize and examine the key people of every service and product you use, or is it just a reflexive change of footing whenever you happen upon news like this? Also, do you really switch, or is it just a heat of moment kind of thing and an opportunity to profess yourself?
have_faith 14 hours ago||
There's nothing wrong with acting on new information as and when it surfaces in your life without obsessively staying up to date with every entity you engage with. That's the reasonable, pragmatic approach to trying to do the right thing without overwhelming yourself with the burden of being perfect.

It's not a gotcha if you're inconsistent from an outsiders perspective, we're all doing the best we can with what little insight we have into reality.

deaux 4 hours ago||
> There's nothing wrong with acting on new information as and when it surfaces in your life without obsessively staying up to date with every entity you engage with.

So you're saying the majority of the people here who say they're leaving Mullvad, have:

1. Not heard of Bezos' funding of the Trump family, or don't use Amazon at all 2. Not heard of Zuckerberg/Meta's [insert countless despicable things here], or don't have Facebook/Instagram/Whatsapp installed at all 3. Not heard of OpenAIs free pass on the Trump administration using their models for war purposes without limitations, or don't use OpenAI at all 4. And so forth?

Clearly, no. Because it has nothing to do with coming across information without obsessively staying up to date with every entity. The same people have come across much of the above information, yet continue not to act on it, despite most of them being magnitudes worse than this case.

tencentshill 15 hours ago|||
It gives me an excuse to really examine why I started using their product or service and take the time to research alternatives. If the alternative is better, great. If not, what am I willing to lose? Money, convenience, reliability? These are questions you don't want a happy paying customer asking.
corford 14 hours ago|||
>do you actively scrutinize and examine the key people of every service and product you use

Yes

>or it just a reflexive change of footing whenever you happen upon news like this?

No (only when my personal screening didn't already flag it)

>do you really switch

Yes, where it's feasible

dnlzro 14 hours ago||
> Yes, where it's feasible

I think that's what a lot of people in this thread are missing. There are alternatives to Mullvad, so it's pretty easy to take your money elsewhere if you're unhappy with where it's being spent right now.

The counter-reaction to the reaction is so dumb. If you think it's silly to boycott a company because of a co-founders political donations, fine. But it's just as silly to try to argue people into not boycotting. Live and let live.

deaux 4 hours ago||
There are no alternatives to Mullvad where you _know_ that all of the founders have "better" beliefs than this guy. If you have one, share it.

What proves the point is that someone suggested moving to Proton, whose founder (not even co-founder AFAIK) is outwardly pro-MAGA. And comments calling that out are the ones that get downvoted. This shows people are just pretending to care.

It's not silly to boycott companies in general, but this specific case it's silly. Not because of the reason, but because boycotting only makes sense if it's very likely that an alternative is going to be better in the specific factor that instigates the boycott. In this case, it's not likely, you have no clue whether an alternative is going to have more or less $0.0x of your $1 going to people supporting far-right parties.

Especially when VPN companies are known to be some of the dodgiest tech companies in general. Mullvad is one of the most transparent ones.

nananana9 15 hours ago|||
> do you actively scrutinize and examine the key people of every service and product you use

No.

> is it just a reflexive change of footing whenever you happen upon news like this

Yes.

> do you really switch

Yes.

What is the implication here? That because I did not know that a percentage of the money I give a company went towards supporting a party whose I that I find disgusting, I should keep supporting them now that I do know?

mrhottakes 16 hours ago|||
You can just say "I don't care if people have hateful politics". It's much easier.
daneel_w 16 hours ago|||
[flagged]
anthonyrstevens 16 hours ago|||
[flagged]
mrhottakes 16 hours ago||
[flagged]
bix6 16 hours ago|||
If alternatives exist some of us are willing to make changes to not support the worst of the worst when their behavior is revealed.

I used to like Musk, now I see Tesla and am disgusted. Maybe he was always like this but the personal line for me was the salutes. I’m sure many others have lines as well.

daneel_w 16 hours ago||
How do you know the political party of the story is "the worst of the worst"? You don't.
bix6 12 hours ago|||
I don’t know anything about this tbh I was just answering your general question through my own lens. When someone does something newsworthy and I read about, I adjust, depending on my ethics and whether they align. In general I don’t seem to align with the far right since that mostly seems to be about Supremacy and exclusion and hate. I don’t have interest in those things so I move my support away from things like that.
pesus 16 hours ago|||
[flagged]
daneel_w 16 hours ago||
[flagged]
pesus 16 hours ago|||
[flagged]
daneel_w 16 hours ago||
[flagged]
pesus 15 hours ago||
[flagged]
daneel_w 15 hours ago||
[flagged]
dang 12 hours ago|||
You've both broken the site guidelines badly in this thread, not just in this tit-for-tat spat but generally.

Please don't perpetuate flamewars on this site. Please do review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules, regardless of how divisive a topic may be or how provocative you feel someone else's comments are.

pesus 15 hours ago|||
[flagged]
dang 12 hours ago||
You've both broken the site guidelines badly in this thread, not just in this tit-for-tat spat but generally.

Please don't perpetuate flamewars on this site. Please do review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules, regardless of how divisive a topic may be or how provocative you feel someone else's comments are.

pesus 8 hours ago||
Fair enough, but I wish the blatantly racist comments got the same response. Maybe they get flagged more quickly.
dang 5 hours ago||
I hear you! If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. We don't come close to seeing everything that gets posted here...not even close. You can always help by flagging it or emailing hn@ycombinator.com about egregious cases.
Dylan16807 15 hours ago|||
[flagged]
daneel_w 15 hours ago||
You're right, it doesn't take long. That's the sad part. The evidence is in them echoing just one single cherry-picked policy, in a misrepresented way, while conveniently ignoring all their other far more numerous left-leaning policies.
Dylan16807 15 hours ago||
The good policies don't make up for the really bad one. In this context it doesn't matter if it's ""cherry-picked"".

Other than fuss about how to define left and right I haven't seen anything that qualifies as misrepresentation.

"Echoing" looks the same as "agreeeing" so that's hardly evidence of people failing to do enough research.

daneel_w 14 hours ago||
The "really bad one" is a policy calling for what in the Swedish debate is now termed "re-migration" of families who sustain themselves and their children, in their entirety, solely on crime and fraudulent extractions from the welfare system, while actively rejecting integration, education and employment. The misrepresentation is that the policy is strictly about non-white residents, all of them, on the sole merit of race and ethnicity.
fzeroracer 16 hours ago|||
Generally speaking, if the mission of a company is privacy and then the actions of the c-suite or founders indicates that they are more than willing to compromise on that, then yes. Why shouldnt you scrutinize people whose product is not aligned with their goals?

And yes I do actively switch products. I left the Windows ecosystem for Linux and I will leave Mullvad for whatever else pops up. So it goes.

carlosjobim 12 hours ago|||
When it's about boycotting a product like Bud Light or Mullvad, there are so many equal offers from competitors that it isn't difficult to boycott and switch to another product.

Maybe companies in those kind of markets will simply bite the bullet and start marketing their products as for one side or for the other in politics instead of trying to be for everybody. Then they can lock-in strong goodwill from "their side", and stand on more certain footing. Or maybe most customers do not care as much as online activists.

tumetab1 12 hours ago|||
You expect to discuss ideas with a mob? :)

It's like the meme of nuclear energy help with climate change and the answer is "I don't want to solutions, I want to abolish capitalism!"

anthonyrstevens 16 hours ago|||
[flagged]
al_borland 16 hours ago||
[flagged]
raffael_de 14 hours ago|||
same here. and the so-called political left is anyway mostly pro surveillance and censorship to curb what they consider fake news or agitation. (so-called b/c the terms left and right are actually pretty meaningless nowadays imo)
dgellow 15 hours ago|||
[flagged]
himata4113 15 hours ago||
I think this is more nuanced than this article or mullvad themselves present it as. What you give to mullvad as a form of payment will end up in the pockets of the funding members which allows them to make relatively large political donations, but it's also not as deep as presented. What gets seemingly glossed over how involved large companies are in pushing parties like orebro into relevancy.

As a basic example, youtube started pushing a LOT of anti-immigrant videos. I never watched them since after few minutes it's obvious that it is clear ragebait, but I keep getting them recommended without showing any interest in them and they're all clocking in anywhere from 300k to millions of views.

There is virtually no way to resist the temptation of being anti-immigrant/racist/whatnot when you see abusive behavior exploiting the good will of the european union especially when there is state level abuse to extract additional funding from the shared support pool. This being extremely unpopular gives motivation to keep all of this under wraps as much as possible which only fuels the fire when "information" is made available on social media platforms where you benefit from blowing this out of proportion and then if you try to question it you are labeled which naturally breeds resentment.

--

Scrolled for few minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6-zhxpNsVQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARKZMX4iGZ0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmlI4ICp-OI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX-IKLSFH_I

jubilee33 16 hours ago||
Mullvad has always been a bit suspect with regard to their settings or lack their of, however what are you trying to insinuate? That founders are not political? That one "wing" of some hypothetical bird is in some way disconnected from its mirror wing? Regardless making something such as a VPN is and has been commoditiezed in current year to such an extent that whatever may be your motives, you can only do good by encouraging the userbase to not pay for said services.
fakeBeerDrinker 12 hours ago||
This is great news. New Mullvad subscriber here!
simultsop 13 hours ago|
It is a trend now, loby your way to lawmaking. Then set the laws as you need. No surprises.