A statement on the Tor Project's relationship with Mullvad
Tor Project’s clarification of its relationship with VPN provider Mullvad, after a Mullvad co‑founder donated roughly $500,000 to Sweden’s ethnonationalist Örebro Party, has triggered a wider debate about how “apolitical” privacy tools can or should be. Commenters argue over whether the party’s “remigration” stance amounts to fascism or legitimate immigration policy, and whether rejecting association with such views is itself a political act that undermines free‑speech principles. The exchange broadens into questions about Tor’s own funding and origins in the US security apparatus, the ethics of corporate and FOSS partnerships, and where to draw the line between defending free expression and distancing from illiberal ideologies.
Background of the Mullvad–Tor controversy
- Discussion centers on a Mullvad co‑owner’s large donation (~US$500k) to Sweden’s Örebro Party and Tor’s response about “setting boundaries” while continuing the relationship.
- Some see Tor’s post as necessary value clarification; others see it as corporate-style PR and “virtue signaling” that risks alienating users.
Nature of the Örebro Party and “remigration”
- Critics describe the party as far-right, ethno‑nationalist, and explicitly advocating “remigration,” interpreted as ethnic cleansing, including deportation of people born in Sweden.
- Defenders argue it’s a syncretic or even “left-populist” party with expansive welfare policies and that anti‑immigration or deportation policies are not inherently “fascist.”
- Others stress “remigration” is a neo‑Nazi-coded term about ethnicity, not just legal status, and point to party rhetoric about second‑generation immigrants as evidence.
Tor’s mission, free speech, and political stance
- One camp argues Tor, as an anonymity/free‑speech project, should remain strictly apolitical, accept donations without moral judgment, and avoid ranking speech by compatibility.
- Another camp counters that free speech means no government censorship, not mandatory neutrality; Tor is entitled to oppose speech that undermines human rights and to choose its partners.
- There is a recurring clash between “free speech absolutists” and those emphasizing consequences, social ostracism, and the “paradox of tolerance.”
Funding, intelligence ties, and dependence risk
- Some highlight Tor’s origin in US Naval Research Lab work and current US government funding, suggesting intelligence interests and possible systemic deanonymization.
- Others cite Tor’s public financials: current major funding is from civilian “democracy/human rights” programs and diverse donors; Mullvad is only one among several large supporters.
- Concern is raised that deep financial reliance on any politically controversial donor could someday translate into pressure on Tor’s policies; others call that unlikely or speculative.
VPN trust and Mullvad’s status
- Many see Mullvad as one of the few broadly trusted VPNs (minimal marketing, strong privacy posture), which explains its financial strength.
- Some users say the controversy doesn’t change their trust in Mullvad’s service; others intend to avoid funding a company whose leadership backs “remigration” politics.
Broader political and cultural undercurrents
- Thread repeatedly devolves into arguments over definitions of “fascism,” immigration policy, class conflict, and European vs US democratic norms.
- Several commenters lament that FOSS and privacy projects are increasingly pulled into “culture war” battles, while others insist that in this domain, politics is inescapable.