> Recent concerns about a political donation by a Mullvad co-founder have raised questions about the Tor Project's funding relationship with the company.
It's kind of obnoxious that they assume everyone already knows the details of whatever controversy this is, and don't even provide a link to any explanation.
So what's the controversy?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48717469
Mullvad co-founder donated money to a Swedish political party that wants to limit African immigration to Sweden
Markus Allards and Örebropartiets biggest problem isn't the anti immigrant rhetoric but their anti democratic one. The party itself is closed and self selected. They have made it explicit that they want to dismantle the Swedish administration model and allow direct political control over the government agencies. They have frequently acted disruptive in meetings and directed online harassment towards fellow politicians.
Isn't having elected representatives control government agencies more democratic?
There are a lot of different ways to measure democracy but most of the established ones (my own selection based on a quick glance at the “Democracy Ranking” Wikipedia page) ranks Sweden as more democratic than the U.S. so I guess more direct government control and more directly elected officials doesn’t necessarily translate to more democratic system of government.
No, the same way it isn't more democratic if all branches of government all tie the same party line.
Modern democracy is based on the separation of powers and, in the vast majority of countries, a constitution or charter(s) that can't be overturned by a simple majority vote. For example, a party can't suspend Habeas Corpus on a whim, even if said party won the presidency, the Congress and the Senate.
But just ask the Supreme Court who carved an exception for the FED and not other government agencies...
Yes, it is. This is for the same reason that deciding all things by plebiscite is a full or direct democracy, yet also a stupid thing. Your error comes from doing what many people now do, which is treating democracy as "good things", and more democracy is when we have more good things, and it as an inherent good. It's not.
> allow direct political control over the government agencies
Why would this be far fetched? Many civilized countries, including the U.S., have similar policies.
I wouldn't necessarily say that the U.S. federal administration is in a super healthy state right now. The Swedish administration model has its roots in the seventeenth century and is thus older than the Swedish democracy. It has generally worked well, Swedish authorities are trusted in a high degree in general and the authorities can work independently and professionally without too much direct meddling from the government.
The democracy in the U.S. is in a far healthier state than most European nations where there aren't any caps on the tenure of government leaders.
Hungary's Orban had been in power for 16 years and if he'd won the election it would've been impossible to ever remove him.
Hows that working out for the US?
Not liking the current president is not the same as the system has failed.
Masked men are in the streets shooting people. I'd say the system has failed.
Yeah, masked secret police with federal immunity.
Abducting and killing people in the streets, immigrants and US citizens alike.
It got us Trump elected when Harris was annointed the successor to Biden's failed campaign, so I imagine that is answer enough.
It is widely viewed as obviously corrupt, including in the U.S. What other 'civilized' countries do it?
I've read about them... What they believe is just so far out, and crazy, I don't even know how to describe it. Those people have a terminal shortage of marbles, straight out crackpot politics.
The most controversial aspect is plans to deport immigrants deemed insufficiently assimilated/productive, even if they have acquired citizenship, I think your description understates that a little.
Nothing controversial about this. Mass immigration destroys social cohesion and trust. It gets even worse when immigrants don't assimilate, it's a time bomb. Obtaining citizenship shouldn't give you the right to impose your foreign culture and habits that are alien to the country which allowed you to stay in.
I think actually the whole idea behind obtaining a citizenship is so it cant be taken away from you since its essential to modern life.
Surely, if the individual breaks rules or laws, they should be held accountable legally as any other citizen born with the same citizenship. Taking it away from you shouldn't be an option.
>Obtaining citizenship shouldn't give you the right to impose your foreign culture and habits that are alien to the country which allowed you to stay in
This is plain wrong. Obtaining citizenship literally means "our system decided that you assimilated enough". If that's not the case -- don't grant it.
Otherwise you're making citizenship useless as a concept.
Governments shouldn’t be allowed to correct mistakes?
Maybe but not when it means that they are able to take a citizenship from someone. Its not about fixing mistakes, thats not so bad, but the government being able to take citizenship of individuals for whatever reason is entirely wrong and will definitely be misused.
No, that is controversial. Nothing you said is based in reality. And we all know the part you're not saying out loud.
Not every country wants cultural diversity. I find it weird as an American as that's sort of the default here but I can understand some cultures wanting strong social and economic cohesion.
The assumption being made of course cultures must only change from external forces and that they cannot change internally. It comes from an ancient caste based world view where people are defined by their birthright and do not change from this, that we know now is foolish to believe in.
Yep. Trying to steer culture is like grasping at smoke
Smart phones and social media have impacted culture most places far more than a few immigrants ever could - folks should spend more time worrying about those and less scapegoating of immigrants
It's a fringe party with fringe opinions. It got 0.59% of votes in the last election despite the huge funds provided by the Mullvad co-founder.
A citizen is a citizen. You don't create second class citizen, who can see their rights revoked at any time, whereas the other class never has to fear anything like that. That's basic democracy 101.
Multiple citizenship is handled with quite a bit variance over the globe, including those we call democracies. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_citizenship
Citizenship obligations for multiple citizenship is quite interesting from a legal perspective. Some citizenship require taxation regardless of where one live, which makes it possible to have a requirement to pay taxation to multiple countries. Military service is also an other interesting aspect. Giving people with multiple citizenship more rights than people with single citizenship would naturally cause problems, and yet you don't want citizens with different rights as that would indeed create different classes of citizenship.
A person can also end up with one citizenship in a country that allows multiple citizenship, and one which does not, and the citizenship of the person then depend on which country is being asked.
The inventors of democracy, ancient Athens, specifically had a vote to ostracise (kick out) citizens.
They also had slavery. And didn't let women vote. And lived over 2000 years ago. Why hold them up as a model to follow?
I didn't. I was simply pointing out that not kicking people out has nothing to do with "basic democracy".
If anything it's basic democracy that if 51% of the population demands someone is kicked out, they're kicked out, no matter how unjust.
Democracy means doing what is popular, not what is right.
> Not every country wants
This phrase is problematic and dangerous:
A country doesn't want anything; it's not a person. People use this phrasing to claim some authority (always for what that individual wants, of course) over others who disagree - 'the country wants, and I speak for the country'.
More importantly, humans have fundamental individual rights, including freedom - again, not countries but individuals. The rights are no less because some other people don't like the individual - immunity to the majority's desires almost defines rights in a practical sense; otherwise they aren't generally needed. You can't force people to leave or to do anything else because you don't like them.
It's dangerous because it's often used to violate rights and rationalize cruelties.
It goes against the principles of classical liberalism: rule of law, civil liberties, and limited government. I don't think we should just shrug our shoulders and say that it's fine if some countries want to strip rights from people on the basis of race or economic class.
Stripping citizenship for a reason that doesn’t involve a crime goes a bit beyond not wanting cultural diversity.
I know the word is used in cases where it’s hyperbole or just not accurate but there in fact people where the term racist is perfectly applicable.
I don’t think the poster you responded to realizes what they said
Thinking it's atrocious to take away someone's citizenship just because of where they previously came from is in no way a uniquely American thought. In fact it's shared by most people around the world who have a bit of empathy, compassion, and aren't racist.
I think what they were saying is that America is generally more tolerant of cultural and ethnic diversity (i.e. it’s the default here) than many other countries.
By granting someone citizenship, the government makes a serious promise to that individual. To break that promise because you don't like where they came from prior to that promise being made is stunningly unethical and lawless behavior.
And trying to cover blatant racism with justifications like "tolerance of cultural and ethnic diversity" is cowardly. Just say you judge people who are different than you and are willing to break fundamental promises in order to make them go away.
> By granting someone citizenship, the government makes a serious promise to that individual. To break that promise because you don't like where they came from prior to that promise being made is stunningly unethical and lawless behavior.
100%. I don't think that's happening in the USA today. There are grumblings in the far right red corners about the possibility, though.
> trying to cover blatant racism with justifications like "tolerance of cultural and ethnic diversity" is cowardly. Just say you judge people who are different than you and are willing to break fundamental promises in order to make them go away.
Are you accusing me of this? I assume you're not, but I'm not entirely sure what your angle is.
The United States is unusually ethnically diverse for a European colony but globally just about the middle of the pack. Most of the world is more ethnically and culturally diverse.
What the Swedish party in question is proposing, mass denaturalization and deportation of citizens (i.e. ethnic cleansing), is a human rights violation and violation of international law and wouldn't be done even by otherwise intolerant or autocratic nations. This harkens back to the darkest days of the Soviet Union and expulsions by Communist regimes towards the end of Yugoslavia, or early 20th century regimes.
Besides Canada, which ones are more diverse?
What isn't controversial in 2026? I guess people are running around with the premise that denaturalizing and deporting is something that can't be considered in any situation but you can do this with just about any topic.
"And remember: Service Guarantees Citizenship!" [1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO1vWxUqpFI
Everyone draws the line somewhere, including you.
You would be crazy to wish the opposite, and worse, to force it on people who never asked for it in the first place.
[dead]