> Thank you for the reply, I really appreciate it.
Likewise.
> You created a company which .. ultimately undermines the government power and makes it weaker.
Undermining the power of governments and other powerful entities has benefits and drawbacks. Our thesis is that making mass surveillance and online censorship ineffective is a net good for humanity in the long term.
You are arguing that censorship is a net good in the much more specific context of disinformation campaigns on social media during war time. Yes, government censorship might be effective and proportional in that context. It could also backfire.
You are also arguing that the dynamics and algorithms of social media is the vector through which disinformation spreads. Wouldn't it then be more effective and proportional to target social media for regulation?
>> It sounds like you're arguing for censored populations to .. not circumvent censorship through technological means..
> Yes, in democratic countries..
What should people in undemocratic countries do?
> I believe that the exact same ads you have on the streets in the cities should be published by politicians or NGOs and not a business.
> .. I do think that political activism is still possible even when there is additional risk.
I agree. At the same time, freedom of expression and of the press is under attack on a global scale. Consider this article from Reporters Without Borders: https://rsf.org/en/world-press-freedom-index-2025-over-half-...
> On the other hand, I do know that vulnerable people (teens, minorities, sick, elderly) in my country get recruited by Russia en masses through messengers. I do know that Russia engages in psychological warfare through Telegram, Facebook and TikTok without governments able to do anything.
I agree that is a serious problem and I don't know how to solve it. I'm sorry.
> I do want for politicians to fight for my rights, but I don't want that from businesses to be honest.
Why not?
> I mean, activism is clearly a part of your business strategy.
From a cause-and-effect point of view it would be more correct to say that starting a business is a part of our activism strategy. My opinions on the proportionality of mass surveillance and government censorship were formed a decade before I started Mullvad. Running a business is hard work, and if I didn't believe in its mission I would move on to something easier.
> The more discussion you create around issues related to privacy and censorship the more users you'll have - that's why I call it performative. Mullvad's business depends on the performance of fighting for the rights at the same time as benefitting from the fight itself.
I see. I interpreted it as "for show" in the sense of not being genuine.