cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/8915892

(original article in Swedish that reported this)

Posting this because I hadn’t heard about it before and I’m probably not the only Mullvad user here, so might as well.

I’m not Swedish, but going off NATOpedia, it seems like the party is basically reinventing fascism from first principles:

The party claims to stand for a “class-conscious populism” which according to party leader Markus Allard takes inspiration from marxist ideology and unites the “productive” classes of society against the “Transferiat”, with the “Transferiat” being a term coined by Allard to describe the classes of society that lives off transfers that are a net negative for society such as those who, despite having an ability to work, live off social welfare benefits, as well as those who work “made-up services”[…]

The party differs from modern day left-wing parties by seeing the working class as co-dependent with people working in enterprise and business and instead sees the classes that “live off transfers”, as specified, as a large economic net-negative and an obstacle for a functional society.

visible-disgust Their ideology is nonsense fake-marxist revisionism to redirect anger at capitalism and turn it against immigrants and people who need social welfare (though they do back some generally left oriented social policies, their main thing appears to be racism)

Even if you’re comfortable with funding this, it still begs the question of just how trustworthy Mullvad actually is.

I guess this still beats any of the dozens of Israeli VPNs that definitely spy on you, but it’s not great emilie-shrug

  • Kaul@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    53·
    23 hours ago

    Clickbait title. It’s one of the coowners who has donated his personal funds to this party. The other owner and other members of the company disapprove of the decision.

        • GaumBeist@lemmy.ml
          2·
          1 hour ago

          Who does he work “for”? He’s a co-owner/founder according to most of the comments in her

    • Safeguard@beehaw.org
      3·
      4 hours ago

      I sympathize, but. The paradox of tolerance is at play here. We cannot tolerate the intolarent actions from this CEO.

      If the rest of the company wants to project an open/free and honest stance. They must root out and remove all intolerance.

      Until then, I will not use this company.

    • willington@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      25·
      18 hours ago

      So is the nazi coowner getting ousted soon?

      Right now we’re at “Mullvad is part nazi, nazi adjacent, nazi lite, moderately fascist, feudalism-curious” stage.

        • Kaul@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          2·
          1 hour ago

          I think the saying goes the other way around. Sit at a table with 5 Nazis, now there’s 6 Nazis. A table with 1 Nazi is just an outlier and an embarrassment. A laughing stock.

      • nevyn@slrpnk.netEnglish
        9·
        17 hours ago

        Hopefully he leaves, not sure if that is possible/likely though

        Right now we are at some people are genuine, some people are in denial, some people are apathetic, some people are clearly very right wing, and some people are deliberately posting clickbait and manipulative rubbish.

        • godsammitdam@lemmy.zip
          11·
          7 hours ago

          72% of the party’s funding…also more than 27x their entire previous years funding…what would constitute financing the party?

          It’s a founder who owns 50% of the company…he holds majority sway. He directs the company. Elon only owns 15% of Tesla for reference.

          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.

          • placebo@lemmy.zipEnglish
            1·
            4 hours ago

            The key differences are (1) whose money it is, (2) whose name/role is being used, (3) how the donation is legally treated, and (4) how it’s perceived and disclosed.

            1) Whose money is used (entity vs individual)

            • Company donation: Money comes from the business’s funds. The donor is typically the company/organization (a legal entity).
            • Personal donation by the owner/executive: Money comes from the individual’s personal funds. The donor is the person (you/owner) as an individual.

            2) Who is the legal “donor” and how it’s reported

            • Company donation: Usually reported under the company’s name and governed by rules for political giving by organizations (often with tighter restrictions for corporate entities depending on jurisdiction and whether the company is considered a “corporation,” “business entity,” or “nonprofit/charity,” etc.).
            • Personal donation: Reported under the individual’s name and governed by rules for individuals’ giving (often different limits and procedural requirements).

            3) Limits and eligibility can differ

            In many places, rules differ because:

            • Some jurisdictions prohibit or restrict political contributions from corporations (or only allow certain types like PACs/treasuries with specific structures).
            • Individuals may be subject to different caps and allowances. So even if the “same person” is effectively involved, the legal analysis often depends on whether the donor is the entity or the individual.

            4) Indirect control and “straw donor” risk

            If an owner routes company money through a person, it can trigger enforcement concerns:

            • Proper personal donation: clearly uses personal funds with no reimbursement, no accounting backflow, and no use of company resources to fund it.
            • Improper arrangement: if the company pays, later reimburses, “gifts” funds, provides unusual benefits, or otherwise makes it economically equivalent to a company contribution, regulators may treat it as effectively a corporate contribution. (That’s why compliance usually focuses heavily on source of funds and documentation.)

            5) Corporate governance and ethics/perception

            Even where allowed, the optics can differ:

            • Company donation: may be viewed as the company’s stance, affecting employees, customers, and shareholders.
            • Owner personal donation: is more clearly the individual’s political view, though people may still infer alignment with the company—especially if the owner is highly visible.

            6) Practical compliance and internal controls

            • Company donation: typically requires board/authorized-officer approval, corporate bookkeeping, and ensuring the donation is permitted for that type of entity.
            • Personal donation: still needs clean records showing it’s personal money, and (in some systems) proper disclosure so it can’t be misconstrued as corporate-funded.
            • godsammitdam@lemmy.zip
              1·
              15 minutes ago

              Owner personal donation: is more clearly the individual’s political view, though people may still infer alignment with the company—especially if the owner is highly visible.

              Dumbass, you conceded the argument because you didn’t use your own brain to make it.

              • placebo@lemmy.zipEnglish
                1·
                5 minutes ago

                Haha. You saw a tiny straw that can somewhat be interpreted to you liking and ignored everything else.

              • placebo@lemmy.zipEnglish
                1·
                7 minutes ago

                I saw it fitting the argument. It’s telling that the LLM understands the difference and that person doesn’t.

      • petco34@lemmy.world
        5·
        13 hours ago

        If you buy most products, chances are some portion of it is going to a Nazi sympathizer.