> ... a project devoted to free speech as such shouldn't be associated with a political, ideological group that favors one set of publicly presented ideas and strongly condemns another
Just think this through: Since its beginning, the Tor Project has heavily relied on US government funds.
The U.S. government trivially favors one set of publicly presented ideas and strongly condemns another. That is not a bad thing. Just ask them about Al-Qaeda.
It would be an unlikely luxury if all of one's donors were ideologically aligned with one's project. Now, some people want every important employee of every donor organization (or just Mullvad?) to be ideologically aligned as well.
This becomes more complex the further down the relationship tree you go.
The whole current PR campaign (it at least feels like a campaign) against Mullvad rests on absurd double standards as a method.
Problematic opinions at the top of Apple, Google, Microsoft? That's all fine. Problematic opinions at the top of some dissident tool? Sin! If they are not heaven they are hell! We must never stop pushing.
Just think this through: Since its beginning, the Tor Project has heavily relied on US government funds.
The U.S. government trivially favors one set of publicly presented ideas and strongly condemns another. That is not a bad thing. Just ask them about Al-Qaeda.
It would be an unlikely luxury if all of one's donors were ideologically aligned with one's project. Now, some people want every important employee of every donor organization (or just Mullvad?) to be ideologically aligned as well.
This becomes more complex the further down the relationship tree you go.
The whole current PR campaign (it at least feels like a campaign) against Mullvad rests on absurd double standards as a method.
Problematic opinions at the top of Apple, Google, Microsoft? That's all fine. Problematic opinions at the top of some dissident tool? Sin! If they are not heaven they are hell! We must never stop pushing.