As they should, IMHO.
As they should, IMHO.
I can't see how this has any bearing on the functioning of Mullvad, if they were campaigning on circumventing privacy rights it'd be a different story.
It's not related to the product at all, not even privacy policy proposal associated with the party.
Imagine feeling emboldened to share your two cents every single time because some company founder was a douche to you once and most importantly, the implied take, that everyone else should also boycott them because of this.
Besides being reprehensible, that kind of mass trafficking requires mass surveillance. It simply can't be done without it.
This kind of surveillance is antithetical to what Mullvad promises.
There of course could be a "privacy for me and my customers, but not for thee" thing in their minds.
But I don't trust that CEO whatsoever, and I don't trust the rest of Mullvad's leadership either because their response to the backlash was mealy mouthed "everyone is entitled to their opinion, let's all be civil" minimization schlock. They didn't give a fuck; they just wanted the PR problem to go away.
Mullvad's VPN service might continue to be trustworthy, but... I have other options. And it could be enshittified over time, just like so many other things. At least one CEO has a motivation to enable mass surveillance.
I'm also just not going to knowingly put money into the hands of someone I know will use it for evil, if and when I have a choice, which in this case I do.