Thank you for the reply, I really appreciate it.

> My cofounder and I, as well as several of our colleagues, tried classic political activism in the early 2000s. It became increasingly clear to us that there are many powerful politicians, bureaucrats and special interest groups that don't act in good faith. They lie, abuse their positions, misuse state funds and generally don't care what the population or civil society thinks. They have an agenda, and don't know the meaning of intellectual honesty.

I understand that.

You created a company which allows people to regain freedoms limited by their governments. My only problem is that it ultimately undermines the government power and makes it weaker.

By creating a technical solutions to subvert government function, you are basically moved into a business of bypassing government regulations for people with money. Obviously when the market becomes large enough, governments can no longer ignore it.

The problem is that it creates reinforcement loops in such ways that political change becomes more difficult.

For example, we may imagine that Russia and China target people through social media. I believe that the effectiveness of this influence cannot be overstated, so naturally some governments may start thinking about limiting it by enforcing bans on some social media platforms or create laws to force them to be more transparent. You may not agree with this personally, and believe in the freedom of choice, but you are still in a business of exposing people to enemy propaganda against their democratically elected governments.

> It sounds like you're arguing for censored populations to respect local law, not circumvent censorship through technological means, and only work to remove censorship through political means.

Yes, in democratic countries I believe population should feel the pressure and resolve it through the process of electing the politicians representing their values, not buying workarounds from the vendor.

I believe that the exact same ads you have on the streets in the cities should be published by politicians or NGOs and not a business.

> Generally, the more a state engages in online censorship the less it cares about what its population thinks. There are plenty of jurisdictions where political activism will get you jailed, or worse.

I agree with that. To be honest, I do care about the EU mostly and I do think that political activism is still possible even when there is additional risk.

> Are you seriously suggesting that circumventing state censorship is immoral and wrong?

There is a very fine line, and I don't know the answer. I do belive that people should have a right for a private communication. I also do not trust law enforcement agencies and people there.

On the other hand, I do know that vulnerable people (teens, minorities, sick, elderly) in my country get recruited by Russia en masses through messengers. I do know that Russia engages in psychological warfare through Telegram, Facebook and TikTok without governments able to do anything. I do see the politicians in the western countries aligns with the psychological warfare of enemies because it helps them to get in power.

I do want for politicians to fight for my rights, but I don't want that from businesses to be honest.

> I'm not sure what you mean by performance. Please clarify.

I mean, activism is clearly a part of your business strategy. The more discussion you create around issues related to privacy and censorship the more users you'll have - that's why I call it performative. Mullvad's business depends on the performance of fighting for the rights at the same time as benefitting from the fight itself.

I do feel that there is a big disconnect between finding a technical solution and finding a political solution, and I feel like the tech sector becoming more and more influential and I also believe this will not end well.