We would like to address the recent controversy about one of the owners of Mullvad making a donation to a Swedish political party.
https://mullvad.net/blog/donation-controversy
2
Replies
·
0
Boosts
@mullvadnet The ONLY acceptable statement is that the nazi fashy individual nazi collaborator has been kicked out, disavowed, disowned and damnatio memoriae-d.
Stop covering up.
We WILL remember.
Mullvad is dead for us, until the nazi is kicked out.
Daniel Berntsson is not just a private individual, but a co-founder, 50-percent owner and active CEO of Mullvad. In that position, he should represent the company’s values credibly and, as a key figure in its leadership, ensure that his actions reflect those principles.
Yet five million Swedish kronor were used to provide substantial support to a political party whose policies contradict Mullvad’s publicly stated position on several fundamental issues. These include expanded state surveillance, more surveillance cameras, an extremely restrictive immigration policy and a comprehensive policy of so-called remigration. That stands in clear opposition to a company that presents itself as a defender of privacy, freedom and protection from surveillance.
Mullvad cannot describe itself as a political company, campaign against censorship and surveillance, and at the same time claim that a political donation of this scale by its own co-founder and CEO can be completely separated from the company. Anyone who publicly promotes certain values must also be judged by how the company’s leading figures use the influence made possible by its economic success.
The statement “It was a private donation” is therefore not enough. It comes across as a convenient shield against taking real responsibility. It remains undisclosed where the five million kronor came from and how credible Mullvad can still appear when one of its most important owners financially strengthens a party whose policies contradict the company’s own publicly stated values.
“Private” does not mean without consequences, apolitical or detached from the company. Until Mullvad answers these questions openly, its statement remains inadequate, unconvincing and an attempt to downplay an obvious conflict of values.
