Mullvad and Daniel Berntsson's Failed Cleanup

(markwrites.io)

25 points | by speckx 4 hours ago

2 comments

  • addedGone 3 hours ago
    > We cannot separate ethics from technology. Huh, yes, we can, writer's have the direct proof and still refuse to acknowledge it, aka that Mullvad, a COMPANY meaning a separated entity from the founders is doing great things for humanity, which proves that we can separate but still writer is obsessed with one of the shareholder and imply that Mullvad itself isn't an ethical company despite the contrary proven by multiple external auditors.

    This blog is honestly terrible, it seems that the writer is race-obsessed, half the articles are stuff about race, weird gender ideology, veganism, nazism... it literally feels like the garbage we see on Reddit, aggregated and parroted without substance, writer isn't proposing a solution to anything, he is just defaming people and companies and feels extremely judgmental, it's not at all accepting opinions of other people, it's imposing that the world has to be writer's way else it's wrong.

    • akktor 2 hours ago
      > We cannot separate ethics from technology.

      Watch me

    • geonic 2 hours ago
      Thank you for this voice of reason.
    • huslage 2 hours ago
      In spite of what you might think, Nazi sympathizers do not have valid opinions and should be shunned by everyone.
      • addedGone 19 minutes ago
        Why would their opinion not be valid? If a "Nazi sympathizer" invent something, it's not valid, it doesn't exist? You don't make any sense.
      • akktor 2 hours ago
        > XYZ sympathizers do not have valid opinions and should be shunned by everyone

        Seems like something a nazi would say

  • ashleyn 2 hours ago
    I feel like the analysis missing here is whether or not the Örebro Party supports policy that would eventually undermine internet privacy and freedom of speech - two missions that would directly contradict Mullvad's core mission of being a log-free VPN, and thus call into question whether or not they can continue to be trusted in a field where the stakes are high.

    The other policies they support don't look encouraging when you consider correlates of parties in other countries, but they seem to have not declared an explicit position for or against censorship and privacy, and they also seem to be a party where others' correlates may not apply here.

    • addedGone 20 minutes ago
      Exactly, it's not even talking about the right subject, it's a personal attack on one of the shareholder, a free one.

      Writer is literally implying that if you don't follow the opinion of someone, you must boycott all the companies he is affiliated with.