Post #3429905

2026-06-27 13:11 UTC

@astro@beige.party @lostgen@det.social Mullvad is a political company fighting for free speech, free information and privacy, with two equal co-founders, co-owners and co-CEOs who fundamentally disagree on many issues. Daniel's donation to a political party is private and not part of Mullvad's mission. We protect the right to express and access views we disagree with. We welcome anyone sharing these core values, whatever their other opinions. We are happy to refund others who don't, where we can.

Replies (4)

@davidgerard@circumstances.run 2026-06-27 15:21

@mullvadnet@mastodon.online @astro@beige.party @lostgen@det.social sounds great. what do you call a guy who sits down for dinner with a Nazi, by the way?

Open ##3429904
@hakan_geijer@kolektiva.social 2026-06-27 16:20

@mullvadnet@mastodon.online @astro@beige.party @lostgen@det.social quit your job and quit playing defense for fascists

Open ##3433092
@lynn@smol.ch 2026-06-27 18:09

@mullvadnet@mastodon.online @astro@beige.party @lostgen@det.social funding 70% of a political party is a bit different than "we can disagree."

Open ##3435345
@proteusbcn@masto.es 2026-06-27 17:55

@mullvadnet@mastodon.online @astro@beige.party @lostgen@det.social The co-founder argument misses the point. Nobody questions Daniel’s right to fund whoever he wants. The issue is trust asymmetry in a security product. Mullvad’s users who need it most — undocumented people, activists, journalists in hostile environments — are exactly those targeted by the party he funded. A co-CEO of a privacy company actively financing the expansion of state power over vulnerable people isn’t a “private matter”. It’s a governance conflict. A judge can defend free speech and still recuse themselves from a case where they’ve donated to one of the parties. Same logic applies here. The question isn’t his opinions. It’s whether he should remain in a position of trust over infrastructure that protects the people his politics endanger.

Open ##3435353