Yes, but your deduction is incorrect. They're saying the SAF are negative _and_ they recommend their personell to use the service, not that they are negative _because_ they recommend it.
In fact, they are negative because they say that this can't be done without opening up the service to vulnerabilities that could be used by others.
> I ett brev till regeringen skriver Försvarsmakten att lagförslaget inte kommer kunna förverkligas ”utan att införa sårbarheter och bakdörrar som kan komma att nyttjas av tredje part”.
> In a letter to the government, the Swedish Armed Forces writes that the legislative proposal will not be able to be implemented "without introducing vulnerabilities and backdoors that may be utilized by third parties."
How are they even making things up here? If you read through the entire thing they have a very valid case against Discord, ranging from the UX being confusing (i.e. "data protection by default") to actually storing the data they are not allowed to (i.e. illegally).
If you operate in a jurisdiction you operate by that jurisdictions laws. Do you think European companies don't have to abide by US laws when operating in the US?
Most of the IT workplaces in Sweden (Spotify included) aren't unionised even though many are part of unions. In those cases what the unions can do is provide legal support to you if you needed.
Are those the only parts of the spectrum that exists? Passionate and lazy?
I'd say that sentiment is lazy. There are lots of reasons why someone wouldn't or couldn't spend time learning Kotlin (kids, other family, other hobbies, list could go on).