> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> While Tor defends free speech, not all speech is equally compatible with our mission. We strongly oppose rhetoric that threatens other human rights and freedoms.
I disagree with this. Free speech is in essence, absolute. As soon as you start making allowances and exceptions the entire subject is moot.
The only threshold should be calls for violence or murder. AFAIK the Mullvad founder hasn't crossed this line.
Ah yeah, like Voltaire said "I have no opinion about what you've said, that would mean I'm against free speech, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
I disagree with that too. Tor shouldn't choose sides in political debates.
Did all Tor developers, users and exit-node administrators get a vote in this? Or is it a small minority who decides this course?
Free speech also includes speech you may not agree with and just because you accept someone's (or some company's) donations doesn't mean you're "associated" with them.
I would counter that it’s (or at least should be) a mission driven project.
That mission might be political - but the politics follow from the mission not the other way around.
The mission I’d personally like out of a product that fits Tor’s space is: the ability to unconditionally communicate securely and privately over the public Internet.
Saying that mission is inherently political, sure, you’re going to exclude people who disagree with the mission. That’s kinda the point.
But saying that the narrow politics of that mission means the organization should be broadened to take additional political stances that would exclude people who otherwise would participate in advancing the mission?
The way you raise a point about missions being the basis to politics and then provide the immediate counterpoint someone would make to show that this mission ("everyone should be able to communicate securely and privately") is caused by a political opinion, is strange.
> But saying that the narrow politics of that mission means the organization should be broadened to take additional political stances that would exclude people who otherwise would participate in advancing the mission?
They're not really excluding anyone. If you read the blogpost, they're not even stopping their technological partnership. They are just stopping co-branding themselves to avoid being seen as directly associated with Mullvad. That doesn't exclude anyone. Co-branding is a position of added trust on top of the baseline of being aligned with anyone who shares your views, isn't it expected that an organization might be pickier if it has to sign under another organization's brand?
Projects should only be political in their own field. For example, the FSF should be political in copyright and patent matters, but not military or entitlement spending matters.
> Members of the Tor community have asked us to explain how continued collaboration with Mullvad fits with the Tor Project's human rights mission.
> Our decision followed a thorough due diligence process that involved extensive discussions with community members, staff, and the board, a staff survey, and detailed financial analysis and scenario planning.
Tor is not a democracy and doesn't purport to be. The article outlines the due diligence they have already done, and they're writing this as notice to their community, in response to questions from it.
> Tor shouldn't choose sides in political debates.
> Did all Tor developers, users and exit-node administrators get a vote in this? Or is it a small minority who decides this course?
This is addressed in the announcement.
> Free speech also includes speech you may not agree with and just because you accept someone's (or some company's) donations doesn't mean you're "associated" with them.
Tor didn't stop taking the donations nor did they stop cooperating with Mullvad on development.
What they did is pause "joint promotional activity" and review the language of what they had published about Mullvad to avoid implying an endorsement or alignment of values.
What problem do you have with that? This seems like precisely the avoidance of side taking that you are advocating.
>The only threshold should be calls for violence or murder.
Not very absolute though, and why are calls for violence somehow different from other icky things like sharing AI-generated nude images or selling people dangerous weapons?
I respect the moxie of the free speech absolutists and I'm glad there are some of them in the world. I personally tend to think things are a bit more complex than that, but if you're going to be an absolutist, then be an absolutist and allow all speech, including calls for violence.
Free speech is about government making certain forms of speech illegal. Criticism of people/ideas and freedom of association are themselves acts of free speech.
The principles of free speech can be held by individuals and organizations, even thought they don't have as much power as the government.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" doesn't necessarily need to be scoped to just "... from government interference".
Case in point: legal or not, people cancelling speeches and people, shutting down legal speech, do NOT stand for freedom of speech. In fact, I've often heard them say "I don't particularly care about freedom of speech", verbatim,
I agree that some forms of cancellation are illiberal and anti-free speech. But a lot of the time, what gets called "canceling" or "shutting down" are themselves forms of free speech and freedom of association. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that everyone is entitled to being taken seriously, or having their opinions broadcast in private venues and publications, or being immune from criticism, mockery, protest, or social ostracization. A lot of people who call themselves free speech absolutists think that none of this should be allowed and that all ideas deserve an equal hearing.
I would prefer that people phrase it like you did now, instead of the, at best, distracting way you did before.
It's tiring to see people make the case that because the government was not involved, that it's by definition completely unrelated to free speech. Like, you clearly know that's not the case, from this follow up.
Of course the right to free speech does not extend to compelled speech, as you say.
ACLU defended the Nazis because they support free speech. But "free speech" of course doesn't compel them to. But clearly if they had chosen not to, they'd show they care less about free speech than they say.
Like the ACLU of today, who have said that they'll only defend speech they agree with, or something to than effect. Well, morally, do you actually have that value anymore?
You're right, I probably could have been clearer and more nuanced in my wording. In the context of the comment I was responding to, I was pushing back against the "free speech absolutism" which I don't really see as free speech absolutism. I see the GP's attitude more as a form of anti-criticism/neutrality fundamentalism. I was probably a bit reactive because I consider myself a free speech absolutist, but in the more narrow legal sense, with a lot of leeway for private activities and freedom of association.
>Case in point: legal or not, people cancelling speeches and people, shutting down legal speech, do NOT stand for freedom of speech.
Except that heckling and shouting down a speaker is speech too. And thus your argument is incoherent: do you want to restrict speech that impedes other's freedom of speech? If no, then the hecklers must be given free rein; if yes, then the case can be made to restrict racists' freedom of speech as they try to restrict some other people's freedoms, including the latter's freedom of speech.
Preventing speech is free speech? How orwellean. What if the government shouts down unfavourable speech, like with water cannons? Is water cannons and teargas speech?
How about industrial megaphones?
Your free speech only extends so far as it doesn't prevent, prior restraint, someone else's free speech.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
What you just said is the antithesis to free speech.
No. If the goal of your so called speech is to physically stop someone else's right to free speech, then you are just a thug and don't actually hold this value.
And like I said, many people who do this prevention of free speech admin it explicitly in so many words. They do not care about free speech.
Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom from all consequences, like disapproval and discontinuation of business relationships. If, for example, you advocate for the legalization of making CSAM, expect to be made a social pariah.
Your point is moot. If speech is entirely absolute until violence is threatened, some of the most destructive crimes in modern society would become entirely legal.
Even under U.S. law, free speech has well-defined limits.
You’re already making concessions to non absolute free speech in your comment about free speech being absolute.
I have yet to meet a free speech absolutist who was actually absolutist. At best they still struggle with violent speech and at worst they buy out a large social media platform and start censoring shit they don’t like.
True, but you have to draw a line somewhere. The U.S. is one of the staunchest defenders of free speech but even there the line in the sand is calls for violence.
> The only threshold should be calls for violence or murder.
There are other universal exceptions which I'm guessing you are forgetting:
* Slander
* Fraud
* Treason (actual treason - e.g., passing info
to the enemy in a war for survival)
What about disinformation that causes serious harm? What if I tell people that snickerdoodles prevent shellfish allergies, and they try it and some die?
Unfortunately, real life always has grey areas; no simple algorithm can address it.
"disinformation" is problematic if it presupposes an arbiter of truth. We've seen time and again that people and organizations in such positions will abuse them rather than uphold their principles.
At the end of the day, you either engage with the speech and argue against the idea, or you appeal to authority and hope it is worthy of your trust. Personally, I'm a little too jaded for that.
That's not reality: Every court case has to decide on truth. That's why we have laws, court procedure (including rules of evidence), and judges and juries. Juries specifically are tasked with deciding the facts of the case. Fraud and slander depend on determinations of truth.
It's not always simple; it's not always perfect; but practically we do it all the time as a matter of course. Everyone makes decisions like that every day; every authority makes those decisions - managers at work, politicians in hearings; the public does it listening to political messages, parents do it listening to teenagers explaining where they were all night ...
"While Tor defends free speech, not all speech is equally compatible with our mission. We strongly oppose rhetoric that threatens other human rights and freedoms."
The paradox of tolerance: if one wishes to live in a tolerant society, then one should be tolerant of all speech and actions except those that are themselves intolerant.
Neat idea, but as usual, the real world is more complex than any one idea.
They clearly just need the funding, which is few and far between on tools like this and they aren’t in a position to be able to take a moral stance. Can’t say I blame them too much other than the co-branding idea.
Content aside, is there anything or anyone forcing Foss projects to pick up this voice?
I understand that TOR is big and professional and all, but why does this read like a press statement of every tech corp under the sun?
Do we have to talk like this?
if you don't, some will say "you are not treating this seriously, it's not a joke, humans life's are at stake and you can't even bother writing a professional response"
And whatever you do to please these "some", they will never be satisfied and just jump on to the next hate bandwagon the moment you give in to their demands. You never benefit from listening to these online activists, who already hate you and already don't use your product. Even more so when it's a non-profit product.
Yes, but, does that someone matter? Do they still have leverage to be of any concern?
Because.. looking at the whole.. uh.. stuff going on in US politics, I'm kinda doubtful. There are a lot of real and big problems going on right now that far outweigh choice of specific tone and words I'd say.
I mean. Their choice and all, but it comes with the trade-off of being massively alienating, and I'd argue that the cost benefit calculation of that might have to be redone, taking the current state of the world into account.
So.. idk? I think they might not care that much? In fact, they might like the people the Tor project is (rightfully (if done genuinely)) (pretending to) distance themselves from.
the existence of this blog post is proof that it matters for them, people/orgs receive emails accusing them every day, and most of the time they dont bother answering
I think this is a good rule of thumb: "If a company invests so much money in advertising over the long term and promotes its products so aggressively, the product must be subpar."
Because they have a very strong track record of good performance, reliability, and defense of privacy. VPN businesses largely sell trust and Mullvad has earned a lot of it
> While Tor defends free speech, not all speech is equally compatible with our mission.
It's sad to see the backslide. In the olden days free speech absolutists would defend all speech short of fires in the cinema. Nowadays it has to be compatible with their brand of political correctness else they will tar and brush you or stay conspicuously silent.
You see the same backsliding in the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other non profits. They are a lot more neoliberal now than liberal. Interests over values.
Free speech absolutists can still have opinions, criticize others, and choose who to associate with. They're not advocating for censorship or legal penalties for speech.
Yep. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." and similar such sentiments.
One can publicly declare a speaker to be a wrongheaded pig that all decent people should ignore, but that's a wholly different thing from ensuring that said pig is unable to utter its wrongheaded ideas in public.
I interpreted this as just a clumsy rewording of the old quote, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Free speech advocates support the right of everyone to set up a stall in the marketplace of ideas, but don't have to support every idea that sets up a stall.
A publisher of gay erotica might support free speech, and find themselves alongside revolutionary communists, hitler-heiling nazis and radical islamists distributing bomb-making manuals - but the groups aren't allies or friends outside of that.
The Tor statement doesn't mention the actual donation or party. Daniel Berntsson the co-owner of Mullvad, donated approximately US$500,000 to the far-right Örebro Party in Sweden. It's an ethno-nationalist party that is pushing for "remigration". From Wikipedia: "Remigration is a far-right concept referring to the ethnic cleansing via mass deportation of non-white minority populations, especially immigrants and sometimes including native-born citizens, to their place of racial ancestry."
Well sure but have you considered that Der Stürmer's list of Jewish criminals shows a very disturbing pattern of behaviour by a certain ethnic group? Much to ponder.
Every single country on earth participates in remigration, it is not ethnic cleansing by any stretch, given the amount of white people being deported from the US, Europe and other places all the time.
Europe has this absurdist political compass that calls any anti-immigration party "far-right", even when their official party platform is center-left or far-left in every single other respect (like Örebro's current platform of substantial expansions of social welfare program funding). Same is true in France, where you have a party with far-left socialist economics and anti-immigration sentiment that is bucketed as "far-right".
I'm confused. Can you point me to the specific policy of this party, or other mainstream "far-right" parties who have a remigration policy that specifically excludes the deportation of white people who were not born there?
ICE has deported thousands of white people under the current administration, for instance. Their removal operations are indiscriminate, not racial. Several white people (some from Canada, some from the UK, some from Ireland) have made headline news after getting picked up by ICE ERO.
You're confused that I accurately described the origins and meaning of the term "remigration"? It is not merely closing borders and deporting immigrants without legal permission to be there. Calling for remigration absolutely is calling for ethnic cleansing. They're not shy about it, except when trying to convince non-racists that it's actually completely reasonable, and will only happen to criminals, the "worst of the worst", and those who haven't assimilated.
The rest is a large pile of missing the point, and bringing up things I did not say.
I did not say any one was doing it. I said people were calling for it.
For the leaders of the Örebro Party in particular, Wikipedia suffices:
> In a podcast segment about second generation immigrants involved in organised crime Allard stated "They will also be forced to leave, even if they are born in Sweden, because they have no natural connection to Sweden. They are not Swedish. They have not been interested in becoming Swedish."
(I am aware that Sweden is _Jus sanguinis_; it is entirely possible that second generation immigrants don't have citizenship; that merely makes it legal. And he does not explicitly make even that limiting argument.)
Note too that ethnicity is narrower than skin color; the lumping together of all European-extraction is a contingent feature of history, and is weaker than you might think. Kicking out non-Swedes would ethnic-cleansing, and would be even if the people being kicked out were white.
Nor does also deporting people for non-ethnic reasons make the rest of a remigration program not ethnic-cleansing. It's not the goal, but it's no big loss to these nationalists, because they're authoritarian race-collectivists willing to cause harm to get those people out.
Almost no European countries, and almost no countries in general for that matter, allow people visiting a country, or illegally being in that country, to give birth there and have that child automatically become a citizen.
In Sweden, a child born in Sweden to a visitor or illegal immigrant is NOT automatically a citizen.
You know where else that statement is true? Denmark, UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Greece. Practically the entire world, actually.
All the aforementioned countries REQUIRE legal status of the parents before the child gets citizenship status, even when born there.
So when the administration 'attacks' birthright citizenship, they are proposing to bring the US in line with the majority of the world and the entirety of Europe.
Incredible - that would make me an illegal immigrant because my parents had me while they were here on student visas and we wouldn't have been able to build the lives we had for the past 40+ years! What a compassionate and humane system, how refreshing.
The level of naked ethnosupremacism embedded in European ideals and their constant barking at how the US is actually the most racist country is so very funny to me. If you rebuild the ship of fools plank by plank will it still dash itself against the reef?
Not taking a stand on either side, but your parent is correct. This isn't a European thing - but true in most countries.
And yes, things like race are a primary reason (for good or bad).
And yes, as my Spanish friend keeps pointing out: While the US has a large homicide rate, they can't beat the Europeans when it comes to pogroms, mass killings, etc every so many decades. Europe will be, well, Europe.
It wasn't "legal status". It was "subject to laws of the country" (i.e, excluding diplomats).
If the very constitution of the country classifies tourists as "not subject to the law of the US", that's some The Purge level popcorn. All visitors and illegal aliens would have had diplomatic immunity.
The US can amend the constitution. It has not. SCOTUS has no legal right to do it unilaterally.
Anyone with at least half a brain working understand that crime rate is the consequence of racism and far right influence.
When you struggle to get a job, your schools are overloaded, not well funded, you are forced to ghettoisation, get reminded every day you are not welcome or hated, get considered a criminal by default by ignorants like you, the odds of taking the wrong path becomes quickly much larger.
> It's a shame that refusing to consort with fascists is conflated with "being political".
It's because they are a political party, and he was donating to it. There's no better definition of being punished for a political opinion than being punished to donating to a legitimate party.
And their not "fascists", it's a Swedish nationalist party.
Naming everything you don't like as "fascist" is a quick way to have your opinion dismissed as crazy.
Not giving my money so that it flows to an antiimmigrant party, having myself been an immigrant, is rather different from punishing.
Only rich tech bros have this absurd situation where they are "punished" by a political opinion, because only they can meaningfully sway "one person, one vote" with their money.
Are we talking about the political opinion of toilet cleaners who don't have the money to donate, or the energy, or the podcasts to express it? No. That's not an opinion that can be punished, it's just a non-event for many here.
So let me not shed a tear for the political opinions of the Mullvad boss.
The Swedish party in question seems to hold a position on immigrants that is fascist due to their hostility towards immigrants. While holding a fascist opinion is allowed free speech in a democratic society. Speech that incites violence or hatred is not - generally. And TOR as well as most other civil and decent human beings have every right and perhaps obligation to opine that fascists suck and can f-off.
They are not fascists, they are somewhere between “right-socialists” and left-populists, seemingly very close to Titoism. There is a substantial difference. Fascism calls for fusion of corporations and state and I haven’t seen that from them. They have called for socialization of energy, but that’s common among many left parties.
I am sick to death of the overapplication of the word “fascism”. It doesn’t mean “bad thing”. Distinct words are needed for distinct concepts, otherwise all political discourse ends up like here in America where you have “liberals” who are not actually liberal and “conservatives” who don’t want to conserve anything.
Edit: edited to reflect that they are probably a lot closer to Tito than Hoxha or Juche, after thinking about it.
The annoyance is that your personal judgement of "bad" is being wrapped up in emotional escalating language which equivocates, "I dont like this policy on immigration" with the history of genocide and total war in europe.
> Fascism calls for fusion of corporations and state
Ironically, most people screaming online and at demonstrations about "fascism" explicitly support this. Outside of socialized health care and university education, it's impossible to detect any traditional left-wing politics among them - deviate an inch from those two things and they instantly revert to a sort of common ignorant libertarianism.
They don't understand that socialized health care and university educations (both of which I support) are easily incorporated into a fascist state, or that Mussolini became prominent and famous as the head of Italian socialism, and saw fascism as a more efficient and powerful way to provide the things that he wanted. They can't be central to your anti-fascism.
But, in fact, all of their anti-fascism is those two things, and additionally somehow unlimited immigration (a capitalist dream.) The only even vaguely left-wing related ways to support this are 1) that communists didn't believe in nation-states, they believed in world communism, and 2) that warmongering imperialists attacked immigrants' countries of origin, so their populations are simply "chickens coming home to roost," aka "blowback."
The first is them pretending to be communists when they're social safety net liberals which falls apart pretty quickly, and the second basically paints immigrants as a punishment as the West deserves. It's no wonder that they default to liberal elite capitalist defenses of immigration - "who will pick our fruit and clean our toilets?" "I love their food, their native dances, their beautiful clothes, and their magical mysterious spirituality," "they're so much more beautiful and interesting than boring white people." At least then immigrants aren't painted as some sort of venereal disease you get from fucking other countries over.
The real reason is that they're following the anti-Wall rhetoric that was cynically aimed at Trump in 2016 by the Democrats (and the Koch brothers) in a massive colossally expensive media campaign, and mistaking that for left-wing politics.
There's a hidden strength in this from the "birthright citizenship" in the US which combined with the extreme pro-immigration stance that the Democrats had to take to differentiate from Trump. A bunch of immigrant children and citizen children of illegal immigrant parents started pretending to be left-wing when they were really mostly single-issue (themselves), and it also worked because they were often low-middle income (safety net, again themselves.) The joy that upper-middle class whites who got worthless liberal arts degrees in word salad experienced when they could attend meetings (and have sex) with this population is mostly responsible for the rise of this dimwitted activism that gets blamed on the left. It was the logical continuation of the orgy of self-love they fell into after congratulating themselves for voting for a black (but absolutely nothing to do with anything that the US did to black people) president twice. A black president of immigrant descent who made "DREAMers" an issue.
There's a similar feature in Europe with refugees, and additionally in both places because there are simply a lot of foreign elites in European universities who love to be seen as the victim rather than the oppressors that they are seen as where they come from. Europe also doesn't have the history with local black people to feel guilty about, so their guilt is mostly around colonies - and these people are from former colonies. Europeans should feel guilty about the gypsies, Holocaust and all, but they don't; they still hate them. Hell, the US left-liberal transferred their guilt about black people and natives to immigrants, who are cast as strivers and saints with big happy families to differentiate them from the abandoned and ghettoized ex-slaves who get to hear about how immigrants built America.
When every power structure in the world started adopting this stupid language, the former left were doomed. Why wouldn't they be? The beliefs of the actual, traditional left had officially been deemed "fascist" and replaced with a cobbled-together set of lifestyle beliefs and xenophilia that bankers had no problem with.
>The Swedish party in question seems to hold a position on immigrants that is fascist due to their hostility towards immigrants.
Advocating for controlling borders and opposing immigration is a legitimate political position, whether you agree with it or not. Those who describe everything they disagree with as 'fascism' are not credible people.
> While Tor defends free speech, not all speech is equally compatible with our mission.
If Tor hems and haws about political speech, they 100% lose any rhetorical cover against (fallacious but politically compelling) arguments like "so you're OK with CP, but you draw the line at Swedes being against African immigration?" (which is the political issue in question re. Mullvad)
It's a false equivalence. If I design a censorship-resistant network, it doesn't imply that I endorse everything flowing through that network. And just because I'm in favor of free speech doesn't mean I can't criticize the speech of others as a private citizen or organization.
If we look at the origins and funding of the Tor network, it's pretty clear that CSAM is not the priority, although it is a priority. But mostly it's about preventing terror groups like ISIS from freely organizing massacres in France, Germany and maybe even the United States.
A. Is Tor openly accepting donations from child porn networks?
B. This isn't "Swedes being against African immigration", this is a party asking to renege on the citizenship of part of the population. "Remigration" isn't stopping immigration, it's looking at people's ancestry to strip them of their actual, present citizenship.
There's really no end to this game of altruism olympics people seem to want to play.
It may very well be that one group continuing to do business with another group is still more beneficial to their mission than cutting all ties, even if they disagree with the positions/actions of the other group. FOSS projects lately are tearing each other apart based on who is politically "better" than the rest in their eyes. The level of hypocritical hate coming from groups that claim to be tolerant is truly wild.
And we see this in geopolitics constantly as well. Remember that almost nobody cuts off contact with an entire country in perpetuity, and for good reason. Try to think of game theory and how well tit-for-tat actually works out in most aspects of society... I think cutting off all contact usually isn't the smartest solution in most situations.
Who are we to say what's morally "right" enough in every situation, especially given all kinds of other information we are not privy to? We don't know what we don't know, yet people act like they have all the answers and that only their opinion can be the right one... even in this (and every) thread we see this play out over and over with people getting royally butthurt over simple misunderstandings of subjective terminology.
There's an endless amount of scenarios we could argue...
- Why does anyone still negotiate with person/company/country XYZ after everything they've done?
- Where does one draw the line and who gets to say where that is?
- Why do people insist on calling things "fascist" that are more of a misunderstanding or difference in opinion vs much more serious authoritarian actions or aspirations?
- Why are so many people who otherwise seem quite smart, have such narrow-minded black-and-white opinions with zero interest in the possibility that they might be misinformed? How does that make any scientific sense?
Why can't we just be nicer to one another and realize that true intelligence requires both humility and empathy? When we don't take the time to try to truly understand each other's intentions, that leads to people not talking. And when people stop talking, that's when the fighting (in any sense of the word) starts.
Listen, I've been enough time on this Earth to know what is behind immigrant demonization, and it's not a particularly dark instinct. It's a well orchestrated distraction maneuver to have the lower classes find somebody to blame that is not the brutal increase in accomodation prices, that leads, de facto, to wage-slavery for big chunks of the population.
So no misunderstanding, millionaires gotta have the poor white Swedes blame the poor brown Swedes. True intelligence requires analysis of the power relations. The Mullvad boss can do without my money, and possibly I can spare my empathy for the next immigrant that will be beaten, burned or sent back to a war-torn country or a climate-change disaster zone.
> It's a well orchestrated distraction maneuver to have the lower classes find somebody to blame that is not the brutal increase in accomodation prices, that leads, de facto, to wage-slavery for big chunks of the population.
/rolleyes
Listen, I've been enough time on this Earth to know what is behind migrant acceptance, and it's not a particularly dark instinct. It's a well orchestrated distraction maneuver to have the lower classes accept the brutal increase in indentured servitude that leads, de facto, to wage-slavery for big chunks of the population.
See how much companies like Uber benefit from it for example
lol, see how easy it is to confidently push a narrative as truth?
> "We are not terminating the relationship but are setting clear boundaries on our relationship with Mullvad"
Organizations that support the right of free speech always have to come to grips with the reality that supporting the right of free speech necessarily involves supporting the right of others to say things that the organization and/or the individuals in the organization didagree with.
Tor isn't the first such organization to have to draw distinctions between the principles it espouses and the parties it encounters, nor will it be the last.
This type of statement is not an invalidation of one's own principles, it is simply bringing clarity and focus to them. Tor advocates for freedom of speech, not for everything that others use that freedom to say.
That’s not what’s being said. It’s possible to support the freedom of anyone to say anything while excluding those whose beliefs are directly opposed to your goals from your organization.
if you exclude those who are opposed to you then you aren't supporting the right for anyone to say anything. Saying you support anyone saying anything but not allowing some people to say certain things is doublethink.
The most difficult part about supporting free speech is that you have to support the right for people to say things you disagree with.
Who exactly claimed to support anyone saying anything? Or are you claiming that supporting "freedom of speech" implies that one must support anyone saying anything?
Only anarchists support that. Nobody else supports absolute free speech. Not even the self described "free speech absolutists". I mean, they support only until they are not affected by it negatively.
Supporting another's right to something doesn't entail helping them exercise that right, and not facilitating their exercise doesn't call into question your support for the right itself.
Who said anything about not allowing people to say something?
In the real world, if a dickhead spouts garbage you tell them to fuck off. Doesn't mean that they can't open their mouth, just that you don't want them to do it near you. A huge proportion of people online who claim that their freedom of expression is being impinged upon are dickheads who were told to fuck off.
"Virtue signal" is a bad-faith term that means nothing other than its use as a cheap dismissal from people refusing to engage with the content of text, even short text like this. It's not a serious analysis, or a criticism of anything at all.
> "We support free speech, unless it's speech we disagree with"
Notably, you are using quotes around something that is not a quote. Your interpretation of the text does not flow from the content of the text. Tor's stance is the bog-standard pro free-speech stance, as Hall wrote in characterization of Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Here's an actual quote from the text. This is the _second sentence_.
> We are not terminating the relationship but are setting clear boundaries on our relationship with Mullvad.
It is clear that you did not even read the text of the short post you are dismissing as "virtue signaling"!
Tor is actually still collaborating with Mullvad and they are no longer "co-branding". They are releasing a statement of their position, which is normal, necessary, and expected.
They clarify that Tor is a political project. Security and privacy are human rights goals which necessarily contend with the political context of surveillance and authoritarianism they exist in. The co-founders support of a far-right party, and the implicit support for surveillance that comes with it, are of significant and immediate concern to those who use Tor and Mullvad.
I mean it's not clear how its supposed to be anything other than virtue signally.
The claim that an expressed belief is principally a kind of signalling means that its content isn't a sincerely held belief by anyone, but the act of expressing such belief serves to signal to some audience a certain non-propositional kind of information. Virtue signalling is a signalling to indicate virtue, and in many practical cases is taken to include tribal loyalty to a particular political project.
Jesus used the phrase, iirc, "praying in the streets":
> And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others
The observation that behaviour signals virtue is as old as the species itself.
Protestations to caring about human rights are, often enough, a modern sort of liberal prayer, practiced in the street or the public internet. And one imagines a vast amount of corp speech exists for signalling purposes (if not virtue,, then eg., to signal strength or growth, or trust). This entire posts exists to signal, it's unclear it expresses any sincere belief whatsoever.
> They explain it in the next sentence: "We strongly oppose rhetoric that threatens other human rights and freedoms."
That's not an explanation. I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to say everyone supports "human rights and freedoms," they just disagree on what those are.
Why are they opposing the mere rhetoric and not the ideas themselves? You either support free speech unreservedly, including for your political opposites, or you don't.
> You either support free speech unreservedly, including for your political opposites, or you don't.
You've never heard statements such as "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?
That is, you don't draw a real distinction between repeatedly, loudly, and publicly calling someone a cotton-headed slop-spouting pig to whom no one should pay any mind and actively working to ensure that said pig is prohibited from spouting its slop?
> "We support free speech, unless it's speech we disagree with"
You can defend someone's right to say something while disagreeing with it, not supporting it, and not wanting to be associated with it. By publishing that blog post, Tor isn't attacking free speech; they are participating in it. As are you, when you respond to them, and I, when I respond to you.
> They decided it's more important to virtue signal
I'm always a bit confused by people using the term "virtue signaling". Do you never try to make ethical decisions in your life? If you do, why is it so hard to believe others are, too?
The implication of the term “virtue signaling” is that you’re primarily seeking acclaim (or dodging criticism) by taking a given position, and that your position likely isn’t sincere.
This is pretty common in my experience, along with the inverse of “vice signaling” which you don’t hear about that much.
> The implication of the term “virtue signaling” is that you’re primarily seeking acclaim (or dodging criticism) by taking a given position, and that your position likely isn’t sincere.
Exactly. Now, who would think that other people's ethical decisions aren't made for sincere reasons?
That isn't the standard. The OP addresses an unavoidable, fundamental paradox of freedom: Someone can use their freedom to limit the freedoms of others - if we support that person's freedom, are we supporting freedom or oppression? Are we free to oppress others?
The philosopher Karl Popper famously addressed this issue. Here are a couple more ways to think about it:
* Freedom as a social contract: I support your freedom and you support mine. If I support yours and you take away mine, you've violated the contract and it's void.
* In a society built on freedom, those who use their freedom to take away others' freedom are parasites on society.
Arguably, the only speech not to tolerate is intolerance.
But that's all philosophy. Practically, nobody believes any freedom is absolute. Freedom of speech is revered and in the first amendement in the US Constitution, but nobody thinks it's absolute: you can't slander people, defraud them, threaten them, create dangerous situations (famously, you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater), etc.
>create dangerous situations (famously, you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater), etc.
Every time someone brings this up, I feel obligated to mention:
1. The phrase came from a supreme court case that ruled an anti-war activist's leaflets were illegal, because it was promoting people to dodge the draft. I doubt many people arguing for free speech restrictions would support this case, even if they agree with the principle.
2. Practically speaking it's no longer relevant because it was overturned with "imminent lawless action"
Every time I'm appalled and both surprised and not surprised to see yet another rich CEO or founder be a genuinely awful person supporting causes that hurt people in some way. I guess it's just a prerequisite for the job? Are there CEOs and founders who aren't awful?
I am not saying the content of the speech is morally equal, but Tor's explicit mission is to make people anonymous and protect speech. The moment you start inspecting it, Tor's mission is negated.
Of course, Tor's partnerships are different than the content distributed through it's network, but I still find it a bit ironic.
They're not talking about inspecting or controlling speech on the network, they're talking about speech outside their network and how it relates to them and their relationship with Mullvad.
"The Tor Project’s mission is to advance human rights and freedoms." - I might be completely barking up the wrong tree here, but I thought the TOR mission was to allow spies to access the network and hide among all the other non-spy users.
It was and still is funded mostly by the US Naval Research Laboratory. And considering most of the nodes are hosted on American cloud infra, if those companies share with the US Govt in real-time what is connecting in and out then the entire chain can be figured out much of the time without any kind of timing attacks. The regular person using it doesn't get as much of the privacy benefits, but the charade is making it seem like they do.
I know lots of people really believe in TOR - fair play to them. I just know it in my bones it's not as it seems.
From what I recall, talking to one of the Tor founders about this, Tor was created with overseas US military personnel in mind. E.g. A soldier’s location could be compromised through foreign ISPs if they accessed sites like .mil domains directly. Tor was a way of preventing this problem. There were other use cases but this one stood out for me and it was one of the initial ones considered.
Pretty on point with what I'm saying. I remember when Tor first launched and it was definitely framed at the time as for human rights. I absolutely believed all of that for years.
'Meh, and yet anyone can run a relay or onion service in a few clicks.' - of course.
'Just false.'
It depends where you are from. The US constitution is supposed to prevent spying on American citizens, but anyone outside of the USA is fair game. Most of the global population is not in the USA (like me).
'If your model is simply to avoid corporate surveillance and tracking its a fantastic defense.' - I host an onion service exactly for that reason, not for my own privacy but to let customers have that with us if they want.
'If your trying to go up against nation states, it never claimed to protect you from that.' - I disagree, it will protect an American spy a treat.
> the TOR mission was to allow spies to access the network and hide among all the other non-spy users
Tor is pretty clear about what their mission is, it's at the bottom of the Tor Project homepage https://www.torproject.org: "To advance human rights and freedoms by creating and deploying free and open source anonymity and privacy technologies, supporting their unrestricted availability and use, and furthering their scientific and popular understanding."
Claiming anything else is useless conspiracy thinking without evidence.
> It was and still is funded mostly by the US Naval Research Laboratory
The original idea came from the US Naval Research Laboratory, yes (as a way to mask the origin of messages to hide the command boat in a fleet), but the funding statement is patently false. In 2024, the majority of their government funding ($2.1M out of $2.5) came from the U.S. State Department Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, with the rest of the government money coming from even more innocuous sources. You can find this information on p41 of their IRS form: https://www.torproject.org/static/findoc/2023-2024-TheTorPro... also accessible from their Reports page at https://www.torproject.org/about/reports/
Certainly, you can speculate about the motivations of the U.S. State Department Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor and whether that's a front for more undercover objectives, but that front lines up pretty well with the US's (former?) foreign policy of undermining (unfriendly) dictatorial regimes, and Occam's Razor applies.
Ultimately though, the tools that Tor provides can absolutely be abused by bad actors, and ever since Silk Road, I've become convinced that the Tor network is overrun by a wretched hive of scum and villainy, where those morally defensible activities are utterly outnumbered by the criminal ones.
"Claiming anything else is useless conspiracy thinking without evidence."
Using the word "conspiracy" in this conversation about TOR is wild to me.
In a post-Snowden world, it surprises me how anyone wouldn't give reasonable doubt to the THE most interesting and juicy tool linked to the US military post-2001. The tool that people think hides what they are doing and hides who they are.
If there's one thing I know, it's that the US would never in a million years leave a data source untapped or a new NIST crypto standard untampered. Their fingers are in every pie.
> I thought the TOR mission was to allow spies to access the network and hide among all the other non-spy users.
Both things can be true... the original need for the network necessitated the mission of the foundation itself... you can't have a global network that only spies use, or you're not blending in, so you have to make it about a public good that many civilians will also use.
Other systems like I2P, SimpleX, Tribler, Datura etc. take additional steps to mitigate such kinds of Sybil attacks that people talk about against Tor, and new methods are being worked on all the time.
Splitting up your traffic across multiple nodes/circuits/etc. as well as persistent dummy/decoy traffic are some methods I've seen discussed recently.
> if those companies share with the US Govt in real-time
IMO This is a colossal "if" and not something we can realistically determine besides saying "we know it happens sometimes, but certainly not all or even most of the time."
Everyone's threat model is different, and hiding from state-level actors is generally 1. much too complicated to succeed at, and 2. you're probably not that special in the first place that you'd actually be targeted. The privacy community is bursting at the seams with all manner of tinfoil-hat wearers and wild conspiracy theorists that think some dark boogeyman is out to get them.
I'd also like to see a source that proves "most of the nodes are hosted on American cloud infra."
I'd also like to see a source that proves "most of the nodes are hosted on American cloud infra."
I will make a correction. What I should have said is that out of the top 10 networks hosting relays or exit nodes, that close to half have an American presence and that the vast majority 80-90% of relays and exit nodes are spread out within 14 eyes countries - you can see it yourself when you look at the network. When was the last time you looked at where it was connected to and did not see a flag within either 5 eyes, 9 eyes or 14 eyes countries? While that maybe isn't the proof you want, it sure is a meaty coincidence and another reason on top of who funds it and what its purpose is for.
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?
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...
Why would this be far fetched? Many civilized countries, including the U.S., have similar policies.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO1vWxUqpFI
I disagree with this. Free speech is in essence, absolute. As soon as you start making allowances and exceptions the entire subject is moot.
The only threshold should be calls for violence or murder. AFAIK the Mullvad founder hasn't crossed this line.
Did all Tor developers, users and exit-node administrators get a vote in this? Or is it a small minority who decides this course?
Free speech also includes speech you may not agree with and just because you accept someone's (or some company's) donations doesn't mean you're "associated" with them.
Privacy, surveillance, and censorship are political debates. According to your logic, Tor shouldn't choose sides on those either.
I don't understand this view. Tor is inherently a political project.
That mission might be political - but the politics follow from the mission not the other way around.
The mission I’d personally like out of a product that fits Tor’s space is: the ability to unconditionally communicate securely and privately over the public Internet.
Saying that mission is inherently political, sure, you’re going to exclude people who disagree with the mission. That’s kinda the point.
But saying that the narrow politics of that mission means the organization should be broadened to take additional political stances that would exclude people who otherwise would participate in advancing the mission?
I don’t know how that follows.
> But saying that the narrow politics of that mission means the organization should be broadened to take additional political stances that would exclude people who otherwise would participate in advancing the mission?
They're not really excluding anyone. If you read the blogpost, they're not even stopping their technological partnership. They are just stopping co-branding themselves to avoid being seen as directly associated with Mullvad. That doesn't exclude anyone. Co-branding is a position of added trust on top of the baseline of being aligned with anyone who shares your views, isn't it expected that an organization might be pickier if it has to sign under another organization's brand?
> Members of the Tor community have asked us to explain how continued collaboration with Mullvad fits with the Tor Project's human rights mission.
> Our decision followed a thorough due diligence process that involved extensive discussions with community members, staff, and the board, a staff survey, and detailed financial analysis and scenario planning.
Tor is not a democracy and doesn't purport to be. The article outlines the due diligence they have already done, and they're writing this as notice to their community, in response to questions from it.
Developers are not machines. They are human as well and can have stances. That’s natural.
This is esp. true for Tor. They are providing privacy services to begin with.
> Did all Tor developers, users and exit-node administrators get a vote in this? Or is it a small minority who decides this course?
This is addressed in the announcement.
> Free speech also includes speech you may not agree with and just because you accept someone's (or some company's) donations doesn't mean you're "associated" with them.
Tor didn't stop taking the donations nor did they stop cooperating with Mullvad on development.
What they did is pause "joint promotional activity" and review the language of what they had published about Mullvad to avoid implying an endorsement or alignment of values.
What problem do you have with that? This seems like precisely the avoidance of side taking that you are advocating.
Not very absolute though, and why are calls for violence somehow different from other icky things like sharing AI-generated nude images or selling people dangerous weapons?
I respect the moxie of the free speech absolutists and I'm glad there are some of them in the world. I personally tend to think things are a bit more complex than that, but if you're going to be an absolutist, then be an absolutist and allow all speech, including calls for violence.
The principles of free speech can be held by individuals and organizations, even thought they don't have as much power as the government.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" doesn't necessarily need to be scoped to just "... from government interference".
Case in point: legal or not, people cancelling speeches and people, shutting down legal speech, do NOT stand for freedom of speech. In fact, I've often heard them say "I don't particularly care about freedom of speech", verbatim,
It's tiring to see people make the case that because the government was not involved, that it's by definition completely unrelated to free speech. Like, you clearly know that's not the case, from this follow up.
Of course the right to free speech does not extend to compelled speech, as you say.
ACLU defended the Nazis because they support free speech. But "free speech" of course doesn't compel them to. But clearly if they had chosen not to, they'd show they care less about free speech than they say.
Like the ACLU of today, who have said that they'll only defend speech they agree with, or something to than effect. Well, morally, do you actually have that value anymore?
Except that heckling and shouting down a speaker is speech too. And thus your argument is incoherent: do you want to restrict speech that impedes other's freedom of speech? If no, then the hecklers must be given free rein; if yes, then the case can be made to restrict racists' freedom of speech as they try to restrict some other people's freedoms, including the latter's freedom of speech.
How about industrial megaphones?
Your free speech only extends so far as it doesn't prevent, prior restraint, someone else's free speech.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
What you just said is the antithesis to free speech.
No. If the goal of your so called speech is to physically stop someone else's right to free speech, then you are just a thug and don't actually hold this value.
And like I said, many people who do this prevention of free speech admin it explicitly in so many words. They do not care about free speech.
Your point is moot. If speech is entirely absolute until violence is threatened, some of the most destructive crimes in modern society would become entirely legal.
Even under U.S. law, free speech has well-defined limits.
I have yet to meet a free speech absolutist who was actually absolutist. At best they still struggle with violent speech and at worst they buy out a large social media platform and start censoring shit they don’t like.
> you have to draw a line somewhere.
So the entire subject is now moot, I gather.
You're free to say whatever messed up stuff you want to me, and I'm free to tell you to "Go F*CK Yourself"
There are other universal exceptions which I'm guessing you are forgetting:
What about disinformation that causes serious harm? What if I tell people that snickerdoodles prevent shellfish allergies, and they try it and some die?Unfortunately, real life always has grey areas; no simple algorithm can address it.
At the end of the day, you either engage with the speech and argue against the idea, or you appeal to authority and hope it is worthy of your trust. Personally, I'm a little too jaded for that.
It's not always simple; it's not always perfect; but practically we do it all the time as a matter of course. Everyone makes decisions like that every day; every authority makes those decisions - managers at work, politicians in hearings; the public does it listening to political messages, parents do it listening to teenagers explaining where they were all night ...
Double think.
Neat idea, but as usual, the real world is more complex than any one idea.
I understand that TOR is big and professional and all, but why does this read like a press statement of every tech corp under the sun? Do we have to talk like this?
And whatever you do to please these "some", they will never be satisfied and just jump on to the next hate bandwagon the moment you give in to their demands. You never benefit from listening to these online activists, who already hate you and already don't use your product. Even more so when it's a non-profit product.
Because.. looking at the whole.. uh.. stuff going on in US politics, I'm kinda doubtful. There are a lot of real and big problems going on right now that far outweigh choice of specific tone and words I'd say.
I mean. Their choice and all, but it comes with the trade-off of being massively alienating, and I'd argue that the cost benefit calculation of that might have to be redone, taking the current state of the world into account.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50021066
So.. idk? I think they might not care that much? In fact, they might like the people the Tor project is (rightfully (if done genuinely)) (pretending to) distance themselves from.
Mullvad browser is my favorite browser, and it's tor browser minus connection to tor.
I think this is a good rule of thumb: "If a company invests so much money in advertising over the long term and promotes its products so aggressively, the product must be subpar."
It's sad to see the backslide. In the olden days free speech absolutists would defend all speech short of fires in the cinema. Nowadays it has to be compatible with their brand of political correctness else they will tar and brush you or stay conspicuously silent.
You see the same backsliding in the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other non profits. They are a lot more neoliberal now than liberal. Interests over values.
One can publicly declare a speaker to be a wrongheaded pig that all decent people should ignore, but that's a wholly different thing from ensuring that said pig is unable to utter its wrongheaded ideas in public.
Free speech advocates support the right of everyone to set up a stall in the marketplace of ideas, but don't have to support every idea that sets up a stall.
A publisher of gay erotica might support free speech, and find themselves alongside revolutionary communists, hitler-heiling nazis and radical islamists distributing bomb-making manuals - but the groups aren't allies or friends outside of that.
characterized as left-wing, right-wing, populist, nationalist, and conservative
and:
Ideology: Populism, Swedish nationalism, Left-conservatism, Anti-corruption, Anti-establishment, Anti-immigration
Political position: Syncretic
So basically everyone can (dis)like it for some reason...
Like the issue of the grooming gangs in the UK
remind me what the home office said about which ethnicity “group-based child sexual exploitation offenders” are most commonly?
As of June 2025, there were 1,731 foreign sex offenders in prison, making up 10.6% of all prisoners convicted of sexual offences.
one can't establish a relationship between ethnicity and criminality anyway. The determinant variables are socio-economic.
Europe has this absurdist political compass that calls any anti-immigration party "far-right", even when their official party platform is center-left or far-left in every single other respect (like Örebro's current platform of substantial expansions of social welfare program funding). Same is true in France, where you have a party with far-left socialist economics and anti-immigration sentiment that is bucketed as "far-right".
We know what ethnic-cleansing looks like, and the horrors it both requires to do and eventually causes.
"Government goodies, but just for people like us" is very much compatible with far-right governance.
ICE has deported thousands of white people under the current administration, for instance. Their removal operations are indiscriminate, not racial. Several white people (some from Canada, some from the UK, some from Ireland) have made headline news after getting picked up by ICE ERO.
The rest is a large pile of missing the point, and bringing up things I did not say. I did not say any one was doing it. I said people were calling for it.
For the leaders of the Örebro Party in particular, Wikipedia suffices: > In a podcast segment about second generation immigrants involved in organised crime Allard stated "They will also be forced to leave, even if they are born in Sweden, because they have no natural connection to Sweden. They are not Swedish. They have not been interested in becoming Swedish."
(I am aware that Sweden is _Jus sanguinis_; it is entirely possible that second generation immigrants don't have citizenship; that merely makes it legal. And he does not explicitly make even that limiting argument.)
Note too that ethnicity is narrower than skin color; the lumping together of all European-extraction is a contingent feature of history, and is weaker than you might think. Kicking out non-Swedes would ethnic-cleansing, and would be even if the people being kicked out were white.
Nor does also deporting people for non-ethnic reasons make the rest of a remigration program not ethnic-cleansing. It's not the goal, but it's no big loss to these nationalists, because they're authoritarian race-collectivists willing to cause harm to get those people out.
That said, it isn't something nearly as drastic or categorical as these far-right, ultranationalist EU parties.
In Sweden, a child born in Sweden to a visitor or illegal immigrant is NOT automatically a citizen.
You know where else that statement is true? Denmark, UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Greece. Practically the entire world, actually.
All the aforementioned countries REQUIRE legal status of the parents before the child gets citizenship status, even when born there.
So when the administration 'attacks' birthright citizenship, they are proposing to bring the US in line with the majority of the world and the entirety of Europe.
The level of naked ethnosupremacism embedded in European ideals and their constant barking at how the US is actually the most racist country is so very funny to me. If you rebuild the ship of fools plank by plank will it still dash itself against the reef?
And yes, things like race are a primary reason (for good or bad).
And yes, as my Spanish friend keeps pointing out: While the US has a large homicide rate, they can't beat the Europeans when it comes to pogroms, mass killings, etc every so many decades. Europe will be, well, Europe.
If the very constitution of the country classifies tourists as "not subject to the law of the US", that's some The Purge level popcorn. All visitors and illegal aliens would have had diplomatic immunity.
The US can amend the constitution. It has not. SCOTUS has no legal right to do it unilaterally.
When you struggle to get a job, your schools are overloaded, not well funded, you are forced to ghettoisation, get reminded every day you are not welcome or hated, get considered a criminal by default by ignorants like you, the odds of taking the wrong path becomes quickly much larger.
This is very close to magic dirt theory -- I bring a horse into a pond, does it start acting like a duck?
Thank you for naming the party donated to.
It's a shame that refusing to consort with fascists is conflated with "being political".
One of the reasons I left so called "civil" society is that for lack of a better phrasing I often found the tent to be too big.
It's because they are a political party, and he was donating to it. There's no better definition of being punished for a political opinion than being punished to donating to a legitimate party.
And their not "fascists", it's a Swedish nationalist party. Naming everything you don't like as "fascist" is a quick way to have your opinion dismissed as crazy.
Maybe being punished for some political opinions isn't a bad thing, if your political opinion is "some people don't deserve human rights" :-)
Only rich tech bros have this absurd situation where they are "punished" by a political opinion, because only they can meaningfully sway "one person, one vote" with their money.
Are we talking about the political opinion of toilet cleaners who don't have the money to donate, or the energy, or the podcasts to express it? No. That's not an opinion that can be punished, it's just a non-event for many here.
So let me not shed a tear for the political opinions of the Mullvad boss.
I am sick to death of the overapplication of the word “fascism”. It doesn’t mean “bad thing”. Distinct words are needed for distinct concepts, otherwise all political discourse ends up like here in America where you have “liberals” who are not actually liberal and “conservatives” who don’t want to conserve anything.
Edit: edited to reflect that they are probably a lot closer to Tito than Hoxha or Juche, after thinking about it.
So you admit they are a "bad thing", but you are annoyed I used the wrong word?
Ironically, most people screaming online and at demonstrations about "fascism" explicitly support this. Outside of socialized health care and university education, it's impossible to detect any traditional left-wing politics among them - deviate an inch from those two things and they instantly revert to a sort of common ignorant libertarianism.
They don't understand that socialized health care and university educations (both of which I support) are easily incorporated into a fascist state, or that Mussolini became prominent and famous as the head of Italian socialism, and saw fascism as a more efficient and powerful way to provide the things that he wanted. They can't be central to your anti-fascism.
But, in fact, all of their anti-fascism is those two things, and additionally somehow unlimited immigration (a capitalist dream.) The only even vaguely left-wing related ways to support this are 1) that communists didn't believe in nation-states, they believed in world communism, and 2) that warmongering imperialists attacked immigrants' countries of origin, so their populations are simply "chickens coming home to roost," aka "blowback."
The first is them pretending to be communists when they're social safety net liberals which falls apart pretty quickly, and the second basically paints immigrants as a punishment as the West deserves. It's no wonder that they default to liberal elite capitalist defenses of immigration - "who will pick our fruit and clean our toilets?" "I love their food, their native dances, their beautiful clothes, and their magical mysterious spirituality," "they're so much more beautiful and interesting than boring white people." At least then immigrants aren't painted as some sort of venereal disease you get from fucking other countries over.
The real reason is that they're following the anti-Wall rhetoric that was cynically aimed at Trump in 2016 by the Democrats (and the Koch brothers) in a massive colossally expensive media campaign, and mistaking that for left-wing politics.
There's a hidden strength in this from the "birthright citizenship" in the US which combined with the extreme pro-immigration stance that the Democrats had to take to differentiate from Trump. A bunch of immigrant children and citizen children of illegal immigrant parents started pretending to be left-wing when they were really mostly single-issue (themselves), and it also worked because they were often low-middle income (safety net, again themselves.) The joy that upper-middle class whites who got worthless liberal arts degrees in word salad experienced when they could attend meetings (and have sex) with this population is mostly responsible for the rise of this dimwitted activism that gets blamed on the left. It was the logical continuation of the orgy of self-love they fell into after congratulating themselves for voting for a black (but absolutely nothing to do with anything that the US did to black people) president twice. A black president of immigrant descent who made "DREAMers" an issue.
There's a similar feature in Europe with refugees, and additionally in both places because there are simply a lot of foreign elites in European universities who love to be seen as the victim rather than the oppressors that they are seen as where they come from. Europe also doesn't have the history with local black people to feel guilty about, so their guilt is mostly around colonies - and these people are from former colonies. Europeans should feel guilty about the gypsies, Holocaust and all, but they don't; they still hate them. Hell, the US left-liberal transferred their guilt about black people and natives to immigrants, who are cast as strivers and saints with big happy families to differentiate them from the abandoned and ghettoized ex-slaves who get to hear about how immigrants built America.
When every power structure in the world started adopting this stupid language, the former left were doomed. Why wouldn't they be? The beliefs of the actual, traditional left had officially been deemed "fascist" and replaced with a cobbled-together set of lifestyle beliefs and xenophilia that bankers had no problem with.
Advocating for controlling borders and opposing immigration is a legitimate political position, whether you agree with it or not. Those who describe everything they disagree with as 'fascism' are not credible people.
But I agree the F word frequently doesn't advance political discussion.
If Tor hems and haws about political speech, they 100% lose any rhetorical cover against (fallacious but politically compelling) arguments like "so you're OK with CP, but you draw the line at Swedes being against African immigration?" (which is the political issue in question re. Mullvad)
B. This isn't "Swedes being against African immigration", this is a party asking to renege on the citizenship of part of the population. "Remigration" isn't stopping immigration, it's looking at people's ancestry to strip them of their actual, present citizenship.
It may very well be that one group continuing to do business with another group is still more beneficial to their mission than cutting all ties, even if they disagree with the positions/actions of the other group. FOSS projects lately are tearing each other apart based on who is politically "better" than the rest in their eyes. The level of hypocritical hate coming from groups that claim to be tolerant is truly wild.
And we see this in geopolitics constantly as well. Remember that almost nobody cuts off contact with an entire country in perpetuity, and for good reason. Try to think of game theory and how well tit-for-tat actually works out in most aspects of society... I think cutting off all contact usually isn't the smartest solution in most situations.
Who are we to say what's morally "right" enough in every situation, especially given all kinds of other information we are not privy to? We don't know what we don't know, yet people act like they have all the answers and that only their opinion can be the right one... even in this (and every) thread we see this play out over and over with people getting royally butthurt over simple misunderstandings of subjective terminology.
There's an endless amount of scenarios we could argue...
- Why does anyone still negotiate with person/company/country XYZ after everything they've done?
- Where does one draw the line and who gets to say where that is?
- Why do people insist on calling things "fascist" that are more of a misunderstanding or difference in opinion vs much more serious authoritarian actions or aspirations?
- Why are so many people who otherwise seem quite smart, have such narrow-minded black-and-white opinions with zero interest in the possibility that they might be misinformed? How does that make any scientific sense?
Why can't we just be nicer to one another and realize that true intelligence requires both humility and empathy? When we don't take the time to try to truly understand each other's intentions, that leads to people not talking. And when people stop talking, that's when the fighting (in any sense of the word) starts.
So no misunderstanding, millionaires gotta have the poor white Swedes blame the poor brown Swedes. True intelligence requires analysis of the power relations. The Mullvad boss can do without my money, and possibly I can spare my empathy for the next immigrant that will be beaten, burned or sent back to a war-torn country or a climate-change disaster zone.
/rolleyes
Listen, I've been enough time on this Earth to know what is behind migrant acceptance, and it's not a particularly dark instinct. It's a well orchestrated distraction maneuver to have the lower classes accept the brutal increase in indentured servitude that leads, de facto, to wage-slavery for big chunks of the population.
See how much companies like Uber benefit from it for example
lol, see how easy it is to confidently push a narrative as truth?
Organizations that support the right of free speech always have to come to grips with the reality that supporting the right of free speech necessarily involves supporting the right of others to say things that the organization and/or the individuals in the organization didagree with.
Tor isn't the first such organization to have to draw distinctions between the principles it espouses and the parties it encounters, nor will it be the last.
This type of statement is not an invalidation of one's own principles, it is simply bringing clarity and focus to them. Tor advocates for freedom of speech, not for everything that others use that freedom to say.
The most difficult part about supporting free speech is that you have to support the right for people to say things you disagree with.
In the real world, if a dickhead spouts garbage you tell them to fuck off. Doesn't mean that they can't open their mouth, just that you don't want them to do it near you. A huge proportion of people online who claim that their freedom of expression is being impinged upon are dickheads who were told to fuck off.
It's "free speech", not "full agreement".
Which is what makes it the hollow virtue signaling I said it was. I never claimed they were being censored.
> "We support free speech, unless it's speech we disagree with"
Notably, you are using quotes around something that is not a quote. Your interpretation of the text does not flow from the content of the text. Tor's stance is the bog-standard pro free-speech stance, as Hall wrote in characterization of Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Here's an actual quote from the text. This is the _second sentence_.
> We are not terminating the relationship but are setting clear boundaries on our relationship with Mullvad.
It is clear that you did not even read the text of the short post you are dismissing as "virtue signaling"!
Tor is actually still collaborating with Mullvad and they are no longer "co-branding". They are releasing a statement of their position, which is normal, necessary, and expected.
They clarify that Tor is a political project. Security and privacy are human rights goals which necessarily contend with the political context of surveillance and authoritarianism they exist in. The co-founders support of a far-right party, and the implicit support for surveillance that comes with it, are of significant and immediate concern to those who use Tor and Mullvad.
The claim that an expressed belief is principally a kind of signalling means that its content isn't a sincerely held belief by anyone, but the act of expressing such belief serves to signal to some audience a certain non-propositional kind of information. Virtue signalling is a signalling to indicate virtue, and in many practical cases is taken to include tribal loyalty to a particular political project.
Jesus used the phrase, iirc, "praying in the streets":
> And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others
The observation that behaviour signals virtue is as old as the species itself.
Protestations to caring about human rights are, often enough, a modern sort of liberal prayer, practiced in the street or the public internet. And one imagines a vast amount of corp speech exists for signalling purposes (if not virtue,, then eg., to signal strength or growth, or trust). This entire posts exists to signal, it's unclear it expresses any sincere belief whatsoever.
That's not an explanation. I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to say everyone supports "human rights and freedoms," they just disagree on what those are.
Except they are clearly taking a stance in opposition to Swedes' freedom to decide how they want their country to be governed.
You've never heard statements such as "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?
That is, you don't draw a real distinction between repeatedly, loudly, and publicly calling someone a cotton-headed slop-spouting pig to whom no one should pay any mind and actively working to ensure that said pig is prohibited from spouting its slop?
You can defend someone's right to say something while disagreeing with it, not supporting it, and not wanting to be associated with it. By publishing that blog post, Tor isn't attacking free speech; they are participating in it. As are you, when you respond to them, and I, when I respond to you.
> They decided it's more important to virtue signal
I'm always a bit confused by people using the term "virtue signaling". Do you never try to make ethical decisions in your life? If you do, why is it so hard to believe others are, too?
This is pretty common in my experience, along with the inverse of “vice signaling” which you don’t hear about that much.
Exactly. Now, who would think that other people's ethical decisions aren't made for sincere reasons?
As it happens, Tor's aim is that they don't know who you are or what you say!
That isn't the standard. The OP addresses an unavoidable, fundamental paradox of freedom: Someone can use their freedom to limit the freedoms of others - if we support that person's freedom, are we supporting freedom or oppression? Are we free to oppress others?
The philosopher Karl Popper famously addressed this issue. Here are a couple more ways to think about it:
* Freedom as a social contract: I support your freedom and you support mine. If I support yours and you take away mine, you've violated the contract and it's void.
* In a society built on freedom, those who use their freedom to take away others' freedom are parasites on society.
Arguably, the only speech not to tolerate is intolerance.
But that's all philosophy. Practically, nobody believes any freedom is absolute. Freedom of speech is revered and in the first amendement in the US Constitution, but nobody thinks it's absolute: you can't slander people, defraud them, threaten them, create dangerous situations (famously, you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater), etc.
Every time someone brings this up, I feel obligated to mention:
1. The phrase came from a supreme court case that ruled an anti-war activist's leaflets were illegal, because it was promoting people to dodge the draft. I doubt many people arguing for free speech restrictions would support this case, even if they agree with the principle.
2. Practically speaking it's no longer relevant because it was overturned with "imminent lawless action"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm
You can learn a lot by reading books.
Of course, Tor's partnerships are different than the content distributed through it's network, but I still find it a bit ironic.
> We strongly oppose rhetoric that threatens other human rights and freedoms.
It was and still is funded mostly by the US Naval Research Laboratory. And considering most of the nodes are hosted on American cloud infra, if those companies share with the US Govt in real-time what is connecting in and out then the entire chain can be figured out much of the time without any kind of timing attacks. The regular person using it doesn't get as much of the privacy benefits, but the charade is making it seem like they do.
I know lots of people really believe in TOR - fair play to them. I just know it in my bones it's not as it seems.
You yourself spoke with the founder about this?
It's the best tool regular people have for privacy without a doubt.
>The regular person using it doesn't get as much of the privacy benefits, but the charade is making it seem like they do.
Just false.
If your model is simply to avoid corporate surveillance and tracking its a fantastic defense.
If your trying to go up against nation states, it never claimed to protect you from that.
'Just false.'
It depends where you are from. The US constitution is supposed to prevent spying on American citizens, but anyone outside of the USA is fair game. Most of the global population is not in the USA (like me).
'If your model is simply to avoid corporate surveillance and tracking its a fantastic defense.' - I host an onion service exactly for that reason, not for my own privacy but to let customers have that with us if they want.
'If your trying to go up against nation states, it never claimed to protect you from that.' - I disagree, it will protect an American spy a treat.
> the TOR mission was to allow spies to access the network and hide among all the other non-spy users
Tor is pretty clear about what their mission is, it's at the bottom of the Tor Project homepage https://www.torproject.org: "To advance human rights and freedoms by creating and deploying free and open source anonymity and privacy technologies, supporting their unrestricted availability and use, and furthering their scientific and popular understanding."
Claiming anything else is useless conspiracy thinking without evidence.
> It was and still is funded mostly by the US Naval Research Laboratory
The original idea came from the US Naval Research Laboratory, yes (as a way to mask the origin of messages to hide the command boat in a fleet), but the funding statement is patently false. In 2024, the majority of their government funding ($2.1M out of $2.5) came from the U.S. State Department Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, with the rest of the government money coming from even more innocuous sources. You can find this information on p41 of their IRS form: https://www.torproject.org/static/findoc/2023-2024-TheTorPro... also accessible from their Reports page at https://www.torproject.org/about/reports/
They also clarified that in this more readable post: https://forum.torproject.org/t/transparency-openness-and-our...
Certainly, you can speculate about the motivations of the U.S. State Department Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor and whether that's a front for more undercover objectives, but that front lines up pretty well with the US's (former?) foreign policy of undermining (unfriendly) dictatorial regimes, and Occam's Razor applies.
Ultimately though, the tools that Tor provides can absolutely be abused by bad actors, and ever since Silk Road, I've become convinced that the Tor network is overrun by a wretched hive of scum and villainy, where those morally defensible activities are utterly outnumbered by the criminal ones.
Using the word "conspiracy" in this conversation about TOR is wild to me.
In a post-Snowden world, it surprises me how anyone wouldn't give reasonable doubt to the THE most interesting and juicy tool linked to the US military post-2001. The tool that people think hides what they are doing and hides who they are.
If there's one thing I know, it's that the US would never in a million years leave a data source untapped or a new NIST crypto standard untampered. Their fingers are in every pie.
Both things can be true... the original need for the network necessitated the mission of the foundation itself... you can't have a global network that only spies use, or you're not blending in, so you have to make it about a public good that many civilians will also use.
Other systems like I2P, SimpleX, Tribler, Datura etc. take additional steps to mitigate such kinds of Sybil attacks that people talk about against Tor, and new methods are being worked on all the time.
Splitting up your traffic across multiple nodes/circuits/etc. as well as persistent dummy/decoy traffic are some methods I've seen discussed recently.
> if those companies share with the US Govt in real-time
IMO This is a colossal "if" and not something we can realistically determine besides saying "we know it happens sometimes, but certainly not all or even most of the time."
Everyone's threat model is different, and hiding from state-level actors is generally 1. much too complicated to succeed at, and 2. you're probably not that special in the first place that you'd actually be targeted. The privacy community is bursting at the seams with all manner of tinfoil-hat wearers and wild conspiracy theorists that think some dark boogeyman is out to get them.
I'd also like to see a source that proves "most of the nodes are hosted on American cloud infra."
I will make a correction. What I should have said is that out of the top 10 networks hosting relays or exit nodes, that close to half have an American presence and that the vast majority 80-90% of relays and exit nodes are spread out within 14 eyes countries - you can see it yourself when you look at the network. When was the last time you looked at where it was connected to and did not see a flag within either 5 eyes, 9 eyes or 14 eyes countries? While that maybe isn't the proof you want, it sure is a meaty coincidence and another reason on top of who funds it and what its purpose is for.