← Feed
@fringemagnet@sunny.garden
Post #3434457
2026-06-27 13:56 UTC
@mullvadnet@mastodon.online This is just badly-worded corporate talk that you copied and pasted dozens of times under every critical post, instead of offering an honest response to what is legitimate concern. And the vagueness of "we protect the right to express and access views we disagree with" does not do you any favours either. In politics there are opposing views as to how finances are handled, and there are those whose views include the notion that entire minorities do not deserve equal rights.
Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance explains in very simple terms how accepting, let alone financially supporting, such views indiscriminately is not as honourable and harmless as you are suggesting. Presenting the financial support of a political party as the noble cause of protecting what you refer to as free speech is a false equivalent. Matter of fact, political parties and politicians do not just "express views" and then go home and nobody is affected. Their very existence is based on aiming to turn those views into legislation, directly affecting the lives of thousands, or millions.
Framing people who ask for refunds because they do not wish for their money to contribute in financing a specific political party with views that go against their ethics as not supporting free speech is dishonest and reprehensible. Do better.
@lostgen@det.social
Replies (2)
-
@fringemagnet@sunny.garden @mullvadnet@mastodon.online @lostgen@det.social
It is indeed a canned PR response pasted onto every post questioning the article. Not a good look at all, makes the entire perception of the situation worse imo. I sense a Proton moment coming...
Open ##3434458
-
@fringemagnet@sunny.garden @mullvadnet@mastodon.online @lostgen@det.social And if fascists use Mullvad to protect themselfs, for their privacy, and that’s a known thing and we can’t really do anything because of privacy principles, I’m okay with that.
But giving money to fascists is a way different problem that can’t be ignored. And yeah, it’s a "personal decision" of the cofounder, but ultimately it’s money he had because of Mullvad, and he’s going to gain money from it in the future too, so paying Mullvad mean giving money to someone that fund fascists with it after. So we can’t separate the company from its founder, except if you fire him and don’t give him any more money from your profit, saying that you disagree with what he’s doing with it.
And I don’t think that’s what is going to happen.
Open ##3434462