this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2026
108 points (82.5% liked)

Privacy

49468 readers
841 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
k_o_t@lemmy.ml
tmpod@lemmy.pt
Yayannick@lemmy.ml
ranok@sopuli.xyz
108
Mullvad is apparently the main financier of a Swedish far-right party (lemmy.ml)
submitted 8 hours ago by Rindogang@lemmy.ml to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
60 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/8915892

(original article in Swedish that reported this)

Posting this because I hadn't heard about it before and I'm probably not the only Mullvad user here, so might as well.

I'm not Swedish, but going off NATOpedia, it seems like the party is basically reinventing fascism from first principles:

The party claims to stand for a "class-conscious populism" which according to party leader Markus Allard takes inspiration from marxist ideology and unites the "productive" classes of society against the "Transferiat", with the "Transferiat" being a term coined by Allard to describe the classes of society that lives off transfers that are a net negative for society such as those who, despite having an ability to work, live off social welfare benefits, as well as those who work "made-up services"[...]

The party differs from modern day left-wing parties by seeing the working class as co-dependent with people working in enterprise and business and instead sees the classes that "live off transfers", as specified, as a large economic net-negative and an obstacle for a functional society.

visible-disgust Their ideology is nonsense fake-marxist revisionism to redirect anger at capitalism and turn it against immigrants and people who need social welfare (though they do back some generally left oriented social policies, their main thing appears to be racism)

Even if you're comfortable with funding this, it still begs the question of just how trustworthy Mullvad actually is.

I guess this still beats any of the dozens of Israeli VPNs that definitely spy on you, but it's not great emilie-shrug

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 2 hours ago

Mullvad

Reverse credit card charge

Yeah... About that....

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 hour ago

Be CEO of privacy company

Donate $500k to a right wing party publicly

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 4 hours ago

Even bigger yikes.

[–] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

Privacy is not something that neatly aligns with the left-right spectrum.

[–] Melusine@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 7 points 1 hour ago

Far right needs to track their targets. The nazi had IBM census machines to better identify jews, and right now, Palantir fucking exists, and its founder is well aligned on left-right.

[–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 hours ago

I'm very confused by what you mean with this. It's like saying human basic needs doesn't aligns with left-right spectrum, like no shit!

[–] magnue@lemmy.world -2 points 1 hour ago

Idc

[–] FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website 76 points 8 hours ago (4 children)

This isn't good. It's also not entirely correct. Mullvad isn't financing this party directly. One of the owners took his money he made from the company and donated it to the loonies. He could've bought crypto with it, spent it in blow maybe, but he didn't. "Mullvad is financing this party" is not correct. "Your Mullvad fees may have ended up indirectly financing this party" is correct and an ongoing concern. So is their tepid response to the story breaking. I would still advise caution, hammer them with public outrage pressure on the socials, and hope they get rid of the loonie party donor before you bankrupt an otherwise serviceable VPN provider. If that guy is still there in a couple of months, by all means leave.

There is no shortage of c@<%s in the tech sector.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 hour ago

"Your Mullvad fees may have ended up indirectly financing this party" is correct and an ongoing concern.

Is it really "may have"? Seems pretty clear that they have.

[–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 15 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

I mean, it doesn't really matter who actively takes the stance or not. The only question that matters is where the money you spend ends up, and whether you want it to end up there. If you don't want your money to end up in the hands of a far right party, you probably don't want to pay the company that pays the guy who pays a far right party.

Mullvad may say it doesn't support his views, but the main form of support is financial backing, and his own company is obviously going to pay him, so it does support him, regardless of whether or not it wants to take that stance. If you give the company money, then you're supporting it, allowing it to support him, regardless of whether or not you want to.

It's like Harry Potter; even if no corporate announcement is ever going to be made to agree with JK Rowling's anti-trans beliefs, your money spent on merchandise for the franchise still ends up in her hands, and is subsequently moved into the hands of the anti-trans organizations she supports.

[–] FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website 11 points 4 hours ago

You may be as outraged as you want. I just pointed out that Mullvad didn't do anything (to their detriment, at this point) like the title of the post suggested. That's misrepresenting the facts. If you feel like that distinction (a company endorsement vs. a private donation) doesn't make a difference, that's fine. I get that. I left Proton when their CEO was praising the regime of 47 for tech regulation. I just believe we should be mad for the right reasons. Facts are good.

It's been pointed out here in the thread that the majority of the donation to the horseshoe loonie party may in fact have come from other income streams, as Mullvad doesn't pay an awful lot. I don't know if that's true but that would put another spin on the story as well.

There is no shortage of c@>=s in the author community either. Let's not mention her name again. She's probably a lot richer and therefore a lot more impactful with her magic money than this mad meatball. In my estimation, a dollar spent in the famous magician universe will have a lot more negative impact on the trans community than a comparable amount of kronor at Mullvad for immigrants to Sweden. The bigger threat there are probably the Sweden Democrats and they're already in parliament as the second largest fraction.

[–] psycotica0@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

I don't care about Mullvad, but this is an interesting philosophical question. How far does that chain of money carry responsibility? Like, what if you donate to a hospital, and a nurse at the hospital uses their wages to buy bread, and the owner of the bread factory is problematic?

Definitely some fraction of my donation went to the bread factory owner's politics, but is it my responsibility? Should I withhold donations to the hospital until they've pressured the nurse to buy a different brand of bread, or let them go?

Definitely the bread factory owner has a bunch of money, and money is power, and that money was given by customers in exchange for bread, so at some point if we want their power to diminish steps must be taken. But is the hospital donor's money the right lever for that? Does it outweigh the benefits?

What if the bread factory's owner is fine, but has a worker who spends their money on a problematic cause. Is it still the hospital donor's responsibility?

[–] obelisk_complex@piefed.ca 2 points 1 hour ago

This is just one step, though. Money to Mullvad goes in part to the cofounder who is a racist piece of shit.

But to your question, I think the "dilution" question has a different answer for everyone. Have you seen "The Good Place"? Philosophy is the major theme and this is one of the major philosophical questions they deal with. Great show, recommended if it's unfamiliar to you.

[–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 1 points 1 hour ago

I believe responsibility is a personal choice. How much something matters depends on how much it matters to you. The more important thing is that you ask the relevant questions to actually assess what matters and how you address issues that arise between what you're doing and how that affects the world around you.

Do you consider the fraction of your hospital donation that goes to the nurse to be significant enough to change how you donate? And do you consider the nurse's bread purchases to be a significant enough portion of the bread factory's profits? And do you consider the significance of that to outweigh the significance of the nurse having enough to eat? And if something about this does reach that level of significance to you, is changing your donation to the hospital the method by which you want to address the issues with the bread factory owner, or is there another action that might be more effective?

It's difficult to address these issues in daily life due to their emergent complexity, but the more we can do to be ethical, the more of a positive impact we can have on the world around us.

[–] antrosapien@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago

That's kinda similar question I had while learning about veganism. It's not possible in absolute sense to get rid of animal cruelty, there's always going to have some indirect connection cause the way we have designed our system. So the general answer for me is; as practicable as possible and not letting perfect be the archenemy of good

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 hours ago

The only question that matters is where the money you spend ends up, and whether you want it to end up there

Serious question to that. How many degrees of separation does that account for? If I spent money at a random company, that does not endorse a far right candidate, but then it pays an employee and that employee then turns around and supports a far right candidate, is it still “my money”?

Does it matter if they’re a front line worker or if they’re a manager or a C-level if it’s not done by the company directly? Do you have to vet out the buying habits of every employee at every company you spend money on?

I think of Chic-Fil-A, which is different because money from sales goes straight to the foundation, which is used against LGBTQ+ people, but if someone were to be paid via paycheck and then spent it at Chic-Fil-A, is it my money anymore?

[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.ml 13 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

They won't get rid of him if there is no threat of bankruptcy... "Lets not jump into action maybe they'll do the right thing" is not a good plan

[–] ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

They can force him out as CEO, that can do nothing about his co-ownership though.

[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 hours ago

But that's even less reason to give them money, if he is a co-owner part of the profit directly funds fascism. It's not just about funding the parties, but having mullvad as the defacto gold standard, continuing to do business with them gives fascists co-ownership over parts of privacy-critical infrastructure.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 7 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Berntsson apparently gets most of his income from other companies that he owns (in investments), with Mullvad not being run primarily as a dividend source, so Mullvad’s contribution to the money he donated to the Nazis was probably small. Still, a small amount of shit in the punchbowl is still faecal contamination, though it may be good to keep the facts in mind if weighing up Mullvad vs. Proton vs. Kape and evaluating acceptable compromises (ethical consumption under capitalism and all that).

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] nevyn@slrpnk.net 28 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Your headline is misleading.

One of the founders (and co-ceo) of Mullvad made a substantial donation to an unhinged political party. Mullvad did not, and Mullvad claim to be against it.

This has been all over mastodon for days.

[–] M137@lemmy.today 2 points 2 hours ago

It has been here on Lemmy too, several threads on the front page without the misleading title. OP either did that on purpose (them not replying here at all gives that more weight IMO) or they didn't even try to see if it had been posted and didn't read anything in the article and posted without caring if the title is ture or not. The post should be removed.

[–] Seppo@sopuli.xyz 5 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Mullvad has not claimed to be against it. Mullvad has pretty much said "if you don't like free speach, we're sorry you feel that way".

[–] ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

Their statement reads

It should be obvious that Daniel's private donation to a political party is not part of Mullvad's values or mission, in the same way that someone's opinions on animal rights, taxes or public healthcare policy isn't.

They're pretty clearly saying that they as a company have no part in this political support.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] nevyn@slrpnk.net 7 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

"It should be obvious that Daniel’s private donation to a political party is not part of Mullvad’s values or mission."

[–] JillyB@beehaw.org 6 points 7 hours ago

You're moving the goalposts. Claiming to be against it and saying they had nothing to do with it aren't the same thing.

[–] RoddyStiggs@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Nobody using Mullvad is going to have their credit card tied directly to it. Much less are they going to start calling financial institutions and government agencies and tell them they're a Mullvad user.

You need to get way more subtle with your propaganda, corpos.

[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Sure lets entrust our privacy with infrastructure owned by a fascist...

[–] Artemis_Mystique@lemmy.ml 1 points 48 minutes ago

clearly you don't know how Mullvad works

[–] sorter_plainview@lemmy.today 6 points 6 hours ago

Mullvad issued a response. Which IMO is shitty.

Source

Statement from MullvadMullvad is a political company. We fight for freedom of speech, freedom of information and the right to privacy. These are firmly held values of the founders of Mullvad.

Mullvad protects the right for people to express things we don't agree with. We protect the right of everyone to access views we don't agree with.

We also live these values by being tolerant in our daily work. Everyone is welcome to collaborate with Mullvad if they share these narrow core values. As employees, contractors, customers, suppliers, lobbyists, campaign partners or whatever it might be. No matter what their other opinions are and no matter whether the founders or anyone else in Mullvad dislike them. The founders themselves fundamentally disagree on several important issues.

This is what allows us to advance our common causes. Being in a tolerant and intellectually open environment is also liberating and promotes truth seeking.

The more people do this, the better a place the world will be.

It should be obvious that Daniel's private donation to a political party is not part of Mullvad's values or mission, in the same way that someone's opinions on animal rights, taxes or public healthcare policy isn't.

That said, if you no longer want to be a Mullvad customer for philosophical reasons, we think it's important to honor that, and will gladly refund you.

[–] ordnance_qf_17_pounder@reddthat.com 6 points 7 hours ago

Although this was a private donation and not Mullvad as a company, it's still bad. I've been a Mullvad user for a few years now and I dislike the idea that some of the money I've paid to them, no matter how little overall, might have been used to support a political party that pushes for "remigration".

I may have very indirectly helped finance a fascist party, and I'm not okay with that. I'd like Mullvad to take steps to ensure that this can't happen again. Until then, I can't be sure where my money will end up.

[–] Tidesphere@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

God dammit, I already switched away from Express VPN because they're owned by Israel, now I gotta switch away from Mullvad too??

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 11 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

There’s no ethical consumption under capitalism, just a weighing of compromises and complicities.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 2 points 6 hours ago

That's the most important bit: Allard had private property (his capital) and he did with it however he pleased. This is a structural issue, which wont be solved by cancelling Mullvad.

[–] Mikina@programming.dev 6 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

That is a really difficult situation to be in, and I don't envy them. I'm struggling with coming up with a solution to this, when one of your co-founders, that you basically can't force out if I understand it correctly, is using his own money, he made from the company, but it's still his own, to go against your mission.

If they can't convince him to not do that, there's not much they can do.

I really like Mullvad, it's the only VPN that I feel kind of safe abiut and trust them, but if a part of my money goes directly to fund extremistic parties, then I simply won't do that and will be asking for a refund. I really hope they figure something out.

But Mullvad could also react a little better, by emphasizing that they would remove him if they could, and that they are working on a solution. Because it kind of isn't their fault, and it sucks to be in a position like this. Currently it's like Tesla or SpaceX saying that they don't agree with Musk's values, and that he's spending his own money they have no control over, as if that was an argument why it's fiine to buy Tesla or invest into SpaceX.

But unsubscribing from Mullvad is the best thing we can do now, hopefully the co-founder loosing his income will make him reconsider the PR of his personal spendings, and the dropping number will force him to reconsider.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 5 points 6 hours ago

He owns 50% of the company. He would be legally within his rights to sack anyone moving against him. Short of him being visited by three ghosts and persuaded to change his ways/sell his share to someone more sympathetic to the company’s stated values/convert it to an employee-owned cooperative, there’s not much that can be done.

[–] blueworld@piefed.world 10 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48696800

Hi,

Mullvad has two owners, founders, and CEOs - Daniel Berntsson, and me, Fredrik Strömberg. All posts I've seen yesterday and today, including the newspaper articles, talk about Mullvad as if Daniel is the single owner, founder and CEO. It should be obvious that Daniel's private donation to a political party is not part of Mullvad's values or mission.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns you're welcome to comment on this thread, or email our customer support.

See below for the response you'll get from support:

Mullvad is a political company. We fight for freedom of speech, freedom of information and the right to privacy. These are firmly held values of the founders of Mullvad.

Mullvad protects the right for people to express things we don't agree with. We protect the right of everyone to access views we don't agree with.

We also live these values by being tolerant in our daily work. Everyone is welcome to collaborate with Mullvad if they share these narrow core values. As employees, contractors, customers, suppliers, lobbyists, campaign partners or whatever it might be. No matter what their other opinions are and no matter whether the founders or anyone else in Mullvad dislike them. The founders themselves fundamentally disagree on several important issues.

This is what allows us to advance our common causes. Being in a tolerant and intellectually open environment is also liberating and promotes truth seeking.

The more people do this, the better a place the world will be.

It should be obvious that Daniel's private donation to a political party is not part of Mullvad's values or mission, in the same way that someone's opinions on animal rights, taxes or public healthcare policy isn't.

That said, if you no longer want to be a Mullvad customer for philosophical reasons, we think it's important to honor that. In that case, reach out to support.

[–] TheFermentalist@reddthat.com 12 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Don’t tolerate the intolerant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Berntsson hides his fascist tendencies behind a thin veneer of free speech.

Strömberg obviously knows his bedmate and tolerates his tendencies.

Fuck them both. Delete Mullvad (which I used until very recently)

[–] jdr@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago

Don't rely on a totschlagargument to to save yourself from thinking about the complex consequences of your choices.

Even if you think Popper was right that doesn't mean you can just draw a line down the middle of humanity dividing the intolerant-because-evil and intolerant-but-only-to-other-group.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 14 points 8 hours ago (4 children)

scummy af with this deflection. as if anyone would want the money they paid for a service funneled to bad actors regardless of who is doing it..

[–] paranoia@feddit.dk 5 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Well, it's not like the other founder approved his political donations. I think it's a fair enough point to make, it is a private donation, and not a company donation.

[–] JillyB@beehaw.org 7 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

In a privately owned company, the wishes of the owners are the wishes of the company. Especially with political actions, treating them as completely separate is just putting blinders on.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›