Post #3435353

@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.