The relevance of this story does not come from a obvious "wrong" in the support of political value X. Infact Mullvad is clearly politically active, supporting "individual-privacy" in legislation processes multiple times. This is expected. The 'problem' is build from multiple assumptions.
1. Owner, Co-Owner, director, etc. Have direct immediate unchecked control over "the product"
2. The actual content of far-X Politics in inheritly unpopular. Else it wouldn't be "Far" from anything. This is also why propaganda and populism are necessary.
3. Far-X politics DEPENDS on direct control (information and excercise) because of (2.)
Therefore --> Owner Opinions become Company opinions. And owner(company) supports ideological politics that are fundamentally opposed to product and broader HN views.
Notice how these people almost never go after the management of major multinationals, or even places like car dealerships and real estate firms. It’s almost always companies and projects that are critical to freedom and privacy. That should tell you all you need to know.
A bit naive, but I'd guess that privacy supporting projects might tend to attract people on the political extreme so you see people are more passionate about this?
The average person who wants (or sells) a car probably doesn't have many strong feels on politics. The average person who goes out of their way to be to buy a specific privacy focused VPN is probably a bit more in tune politically and likely to have stronger feelings.
I know people who don't eat at Chick-fil-a because the owners are homophobic and donate to right wing politicians all the time. I also know people who don't shop at Hobby Lobby because the owners are right-wing christian extremists who materially supported ISIS by illegally buying antiquities. Both of these have been extensively covered in the news.
So no, it's not just companies that are "critical to freedom and privacy".
Those are more mainstream activists and boycotts, I’m not talking about those people. Those campaigns are organized by larger groups, usually don’t focus on individuals, and often have the goal of a change in policy (rather than a change in leadership). I mean the kind of obnoxious ultra-left hyper-online sort who participates in this kind of campaign. Closely connected to the pro-doxing crowd who constantly cites Karl Popper as if it’s a new revelation to anyone at this point.
He's entitled to his political views and just as we're entitled to potentially use or not use his service because of them :)
Not sure why it's such an issue to discuss the political views of the beneficiaries of services we use. I understand it's mostly uninteresting as far as comment sections go, but it's always bizarre to see a defense of political association when often the impetus for sharing this type of information is for people/consumers to exercise their right to associate with business based on their political outlook.
> Isn’t he, like any one of us, entitled to hold the political views he wants and support the candidates or parties he wants?
He's perfectly entitled to hold whatever loony political views he wants. I haven't seen anyone calling for his arrest.
But customers are also entitled to decide whether or not to keep supporting a company for whatever reasons they choose, including the political ideology of its CEOs.
If we are going to allow elites to gather vast fortunes avoiding fair tax, and then use that wealth to exercise outsized influence on politics, it’s fair for consumers to factor this into how they spend their money.
At face value: yes of course.
The relevance of this story does not come from a obvious "wrong" in the support of political value X. Infact Mullvad is clearly politically active, supporting "individual-privacy" in legislation processes multiple times. This is expected. The 'problem' is build from multiple assumptions.
1. Owner, Co-Owner, director, etc. Have direct immediate unchecked control over "the product" 2. The actual content of far-X Politics in inheritly unpopular. Else it wouldn't be "Far" from anything. This is also why propaganda and populism are necessary. 3. Far-X politics DEPENDS on direct control (information and excercise) because of (2.)
Therefore --> Owner Opinions become Company opinions. And owner(company) supports ideological politics that are fundamentally opposed to product and broader HN views.
Notice how these people almost never go after the management of major multinationals, or even places like car dealerships and real estate firms. It’s almost always companies and projects that are critical to freedom and privacy. That should tell you all you need to know.
A bit naive, but I'd guess that privacy supporting projects might tend to attract people on the political extreme so you see people are more passionate about this?
The average person who wants (or sells) a car probably doesn't have many strong feels on politics. The average person who goes out of their way to be to buy a specific privacy focused VPN is probably a bit more in tune politically and likely to have stronger feelings.
I know people who don't eat at Chick-fil-a because the owners are homophobic and donate to right wing politicians all the time. I also know people who don't shop at Hobby Lobby because the owners are right-wing christian extremists who materially supported ISIS by illegally buying antiquities. Both of these have been extensively covered in the news.
So no, it's not just companies that are "critical to freedom and privacy".
Those are more mainstream activists and boycotts, I’m not talking about those people. Those campaigns are organized by larger groups, usually don’t focus on individuals, and often have the goal of a change in policy (rather than a change in leadership). I mean the kind of obnoxious ultra-left hyper-online sort who participates in this kind of campaign. Closely connected to the pro-doxing crowd who constantly cites Karl Popper as if it’s a new revelation to anyone at this point.
well yeah, would be kinda funny if people started exposing oil and tobacco companies as ethically questionable
He's entitled to his political views and just as we're entitled to potentially use or not use his service because of them :)
Not sure why it's such an issue to discuss the political views of the beneficiaries of services we use. I understand it's mostly uninteresting as far as comment sections go, but it's always bizarre to see a defense of political association when often the impetus for sharing this type of information is for people/consumers to exercise their right to associate with business based on their political outlook.
> Isn’t he, like any one of us, entitled to hold the political views he wants and support the candidates or parties he wants?
He's perfectly entitled to hold whatever loony political views he wants. I haven't seen anyone calling for his arrest.
But customers are also entitled to decide whether or not to keep supporting a company for whatever reasons they choose, including the political ideology of its CEOs.
If we are going to allow elites to gather vast fortunes avoiding fair tax, and then use that wealth to exercise outsized influence on politics, it’s fair for consumers to factor this into how they spend their money.
[flagged]