Comment by gpvos
3 months ago
"Mullvad AB and its parent company Amagicom AB are 100% owned by founders [1 person] and Daniel Berntsson [...]"[0]
So I'll assume he owns about 50%. Well, that ends my usage of Mullvad.[1] I appreciate that probably many of Mullvad's employees have different views, and obviously Berntsson has every right to his opinions and to express them, and I also appreciate that someone can have control over an opinionated company and run it for one particular set of reasons but not for other causes that someone believes in, but in the end I just don't want my money supporting anti-people causes.
[0] https://mullvad.net/en/about
[1] If it was a small amount, say less than 5% or maybe 10%, I might have decided differently. But it's still millions, so probably not.
Lets remember for a second that Mullvad has enabled people on all side of the political spectrum to communicate online, anonymously. This is more noble than almost anything else. Mullvad has enabled freedom for yourself, and millions of others, regardless of their political or personal leans.
Let's find another tool that enables the same, while not doating money to a racist political party.
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 appreciate that someone can have control over an opinionated company and run it for one particular set of reasons but not for other causes that someone believes in
That is exactly the case.
> but in the end I just don't want my money supporting anti-people causes.
As is your right. Daniel made his choice and now you make yours, as a number of other people in this thread has done. Some believe this party is left-wing, others right-wing. Some approve of it, others don't. Personally I don't, and as I've said elsewhere in this thread I wish he hadn't donated. As do many of our colleagues. To be fair though, there are also colleagues who do seem to approve. And then there are those who don't seem to care either way.
Still, I'm glad you recognize the possibility that Daniel and I are able to keep our personal opinions separate from the mission of our company. This is something we live in our daily work as well. As a workplace I'm glad we're not a monoculture of 100% like-minded individuals.
> 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?
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?
10 replies →
> 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.
aka the paradox of tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
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.
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.
1 reply →
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.
Ironically, remigration is a means to achieve a monoculture.
Not all monocultures are created equal.
> 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.
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.
6 replies →
> 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 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.
> 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 is quite informative.
That's an interesting angle!
> 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.
As far as I understand Daniel doesn't believe his donation materially harms Mullvad's mission. I am undecided and need more information. I highly doubt he would donate if he believed it would be antithetical to Mullvad's mission, given that the company is founded on our shared values around privacy. I'll ask him.
2 replies →
Well argued
Time for a new VPN co then, right?
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.
Who sees the party as left wing? Its seems like a disingenuous argument to make.
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
2 replies →
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...
[flagged]
> People who failed so spectacularly that the country became the rape capital of Europe and has more crime than El Salvador today.
> the rape capital of Europe
I’ve read that this is because Sweden changed how rape is counted - instead of multiple votes instances within the same relationship being counted as “one rape”, each instance of non-consensual intercourse is counted individually.
> and has more crime than El Salvador today
I couldn’t find any reliable data here other than Sweden’s homicide rates are a little higher than historically, but still pretty low. And the comparison to El Salvador is off the mark in general because the murder rate there has fallen dramatically from where it was historically.
The crime rate in El Salvador is allegedly quite low these days, and I don't think Sweden has had a left-wing government since 2022.
https://elsalvadorinfo.net/homicide-rate-in-el-salvador/