Saying he ‘made a donation’ is downplaying his role. It makes it sound like he’s just some guy doing what everyone else does to participate in politics…
The 2025 donation accounted for 72% of the party’s total income last year. … According to data collected by DonationWatch, 2025 was the most lucrative year in the party’s history, netting a total of 5.58 million SEK. For comparison, the party received just 202,000 SEK in total donations throughout 2024.
Just the annual interest on his donation is more that all of their other donations for the entire year combined.
He didn’t just make a donation, he is practically their sole source of financing.
There is no middle ground to be had with Nazis. It’s us or them. If the Nazi won’t leave Mullvad, then I will leave as a customer. Simple as
Where are the nazis? Are you talking about the leninist party ÖP as nazis?
I think that is the modern use of the word “Nazi”, best translated with “i don’t like them”
Highly recommend everyone read the direct response this article is quoting. Direct from the other owner of the company on Hacker News. Makes the whole “scandal” seem very understandable in my opinion.
Additionally,
Not good enough. If I give them money, the fascist co-owner will use it to donate to other fascists. Either remove him from the company or lose some customers. That is their choice. There is no middle ground with fucking Nazis. It’s us or them!
That reply just shows me that he fundamentally misunderstands the issue. By giving money to Mullvad I would directly support the pos party that this guy donates to. Do they not understand where the money in their bank account is coming from?
I read it as he implicitly does understand that and is the reason he suggests getting a refund if that is your priority. He is just urging people to see nuance that there is collateral damage for the rest of the people that make mullvad too. A loose analogy would be, I disagree with Trump and I wish my country would divest from the USA, which is all well and good, but the workers don’t have great protections and would likely be the first to hurt. Sure a majority of them voted for him I could rationalize, but that’s not the same rationalisation companies use to layoff before they actually start to hurt.
Understandable how?
Understandable in that there’s no way a company or employer can tell you how to spend your money. That there’s 2 owners with divided beliefs who are working for a similar cause. They are indeed private individuals using their individually earned money for private purposes.
If, let’s say, Mullvad as a company was donating to this political party, that would be alarming and worth freaking out about, but it’s one guy, basically donating with his funds he makes from his job. In a corporate environment there are many different people with different beliefs, of different economic statuses. Somebody might be donating thousands to one candidate, another donating hundreds to another.
Just because the co-owner of a company you like supports somebody you don’t like, doesn’t mean you should jump ship. Who knows if everybody else in the company is donating to other political causes?
