Swedish VPN vendor Mullvad is facing a backlash from some customers after co-founder Daniel Berntsson personally donated SEK 5 million (£385,000, $519,000) to the controversial populist Örebropartiet, which is running in Sweden’s national elections for the first time.
Berntsson has this week published a blog post explaining the donation, alongside posts titled “Immigration,” “Political individualism,” and “Moral individualism.” Before that, he had not posted since 2019.
The flurry of posts follows weeks of customer criticism over the donation – for example, Finnish blog Moonwriting’s post “I’m done with Mullvad.” Another blog, Unutterable, is more direct: “Mullvad funding the far-right and the problem with tech company ownership.” The Hacker News discussion thread about the donations has reached a remarkable 1,784 comments so far.
Mullvad was co-founded and is still jointly owned and run by two CEOs, Berntsson and Fredrik Strömberg. Its name, as reflected in the company’s logo, is Swedish for “mole.” It also offers the Mullvad Browser, a privacy-enhanced fork of Firefox ESR co-developed with the Tor Project. Swedish socialist newspaper Flamman (“The Flame”) revealed the donation in its story “High-profile techie gives millions to the Örebro Party.”
In a post on X, the company said it was devoted to freedom of speech and tolerance, saying: “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.”
Check out the book I linked. The definition of fascism is an academic question.
I took a better look at it. I understand that the definition of fascism is an academic question that has been discussed about a lot. However, that also means you shouldn’t just trust one person that researched it. The text explicitly states that (paraphrasing) “it should be looked at from the left”, which is just a confession of the definition being pretty biased. Therefor, the claim in the text about (paraphrasing) “his definition becoming the new consensus” is pretty flawed. It is true the word is getting used more and more like this by leftists, but that doesn’t make it a consensus.
In one paragraph he says (paraphrasing) “the specific flavor is not important, the inherent ideology is ultranationalism with wanting to go back to a mythological past”.
I reject this. What he is describing is literally just ultranationalism/ethno-nationalism. That’s literally how he describes it himself. That’s just like me saying "yeah stalinism in today’s day and age is very impractical and you won’t see it like this today, so in order to be able to use the term, we need to look at it broader, and at it’s core, their ideology is ultra-socialist with the focus on rapid industrialization. Therefor, we should call social-democracts stalinists, because they share the same core ideology.
Wtf? If you read that with some critical thinking you’ll understand why his definition is not the concensus at all.