> You have more political power than your employees, by a lot.
For sure.
> Do you have plans for what will happen with the company when you two are no longer around? The book is more about such things, rather than what you might be able to with any profit.
Loss is a natural part of life. Nothing exists or remains relevant forever. Market needs, people, and the world at large change. Hopefully for the better. The best we can do is act based on how we understand the world, which is why empathy and curiosity are so immensely valuable. They nudge us to understand the world and other people better, which facilitates more collaboration. I believe the vast majority of people have good intentions, but we often don't understand their behavior because we are blinded by our biases. When someone you respect does something you don't understand, or disapprove of, the rational reaction is curiosity. The alternative is to live an intellectually poorer life, which in turn impedes your ability to practice strategy, which in turn makes you less able to make progress on your goals.
We've considered so called "limited company with special restriction on profit distribution" [1]. It is a one-way "poison pill" for Swedish corporations that wish to permanently limit their ability to pay dividends to shareholders. Ultimately we found it too restrictive. It would risk impeding our ability to fund various open-source software and hardware efforts, among other things. I don't think we would have done it anyway. The risk is too high that you misjudge some aspect of it.
We've also talked about the option of creating foundations and donating our shares to them. Both of us see major risks with that too. In any case I hope it won't be relevant for a long time.
> What happens to the organisation when you personally is not around to steer it?
Daniel is a bit older than me, but unfortunately I have a progressive illness for which I take low-grade chemo and biologics. Modern medicine is amazing, especially the newer biopharmaceuticals that have come out in recent years. I will likely have to scale down my involvement first though.
Daniel would lead our companies to the best of his ability, together with our amazing management teams. I trust him more or less completely with the corporation. I know he will represent my values where it matters the most. He's very good at that. Last time we talked about this the feeling was mutual.
No. I observed that they liked Mullvad and now considers it complete garbage. I shared some priors with them, suggesting that there is evidence that they haven't seen yet. This evidence didn't change my stance on the party, or Daniel's donation. It did make me understand, which is not the same as agreeing.
A political discourse which only knows 0 or 1, GOOD or BAD, Nazi or Good, is not a healthy discourse. There's almost always something to learn, if you lean into curiosity instead of just labeling things right away.
Ok. Let me try. Please note that I am in no way defending Daniel's decision nor Örebropartiet. I'm simply responding to your claim that my previous statement is not believable.
> He gave $500,000 to a political org that has explicitly called immigrants "parasites,"
That sounds horrible.
I looked it up. Here's [1] a video of that debate in the municipal government. FYI, I would characterise the website as quite right-wing and generally not very trustworthy, but there is a video of Markus Allard along with the quotes.
The title of the video is something about a proposal regarding long-term unemployed individuals. He seems to be talking specifically about long-term unemployed immigrants, 10-20 years. He's complaining that he doesn't think it's right to allow them financial living assistance while Örebro is defunding social services for older people. I have no idea about the actual truth value of any of his statements.
Horrible way of talking about people, but in this case not immigrants in general, it seems. Within the context of people who have supposedly been unemployed for 10-20 years, I understand (but don't agree with) why he says those individuals are parasites.
> dehumanizing phrasing that mirrors Nazi speech and has been used to justify mass murder.
Indeed. His choice of words is dehumanizing.
> Saying he supports open borders at the same time is just a flat non sequitur.
Daniel has a blog that goes back to 2016 where he talks about waste of tax payers' money. What he expresses in his blog is consistent with classical liberalism, which in turn is consistent with freedom of movement.
> And if the Örebro party decides it wants chat control or similar things?
Then Mullvad would oppose it. I mean, the party is insignificant compared to the other parties in Sweden, so I wouldn't want to call them out specifically. It would be weird to give such a small party attention on our blog. If a journalist were to email us and ask about it explicitly that's another question. Of course Mullvad would oppose it.
> Will Daniels privacy principles stand
I would be very surprised if they didn't.
> or will it bend to suit his likely stronger beliefs in anti immigration?
What makes you say that? He's worked 17 years on building Mullvad, which is worth far more than 5 million SEK.
> Has he made similar contributions to parties against chat control?
> Your employees are very far from achieving such ambitious goals.
Again, I have no idea if any of my colleagues actually subscribe to such ideals. I was simply commenting on tolerating differences of opinion. There's also a difference between empathy/understanding and sympathy/agreement.
> You don't seem to realize how much power you, and your co-founder do have vs them.
Perhaps. I've thought about that many times. I'm pretty sure I understand it well intellectually, but I have little experience actually being an employee myself. What experience I have was almost two decades ago. I'd love to hear more about what you mean. What did I say that suggests I don't understand? Was it the "capitalist pig" joke? I was trying to inject some tongue-in-cheek humour, but waking up this morning I regret writing it, as it has little to do with the point I was trying to make. Unfortunately by then it was too old to edit. If it's something else, please tell me.
What I try to do is imagine how I would want to be treated by someone who has hard power over me, in the way an employer ultimately does over their employees. I read books and research on the subject, watch videos, listen to podcasts, learn from mentors, and I've refined my leadership philosophy over the course of the past 17 years.
I aspire to give all of my colleagues a maximum of autonomy. My approach is something like this:
1. The right person, in the right role, with the right manager.
2. Establish and refine a mutual understanding of goals, strategies, and expectations.
3. Delegate to the greatest possible extent.
The right person is roughly someone who has integrity, drive, competence and is easy to communicate with. By integrity I mean someone who admits when they are wrong and tells me when I'm wrong. Drive comes in many shapes (tech nerd, building a team, "just" a good work ethic, or simply wanting to put food on the table) - all of which are perfectly fine drives. Basically I want colleagues that care about something, anything. Competence means being able to perform their job role.
The more you have 1 and 2, the easier it is to build a mutually high-trust relationship, and a long-term collaboration with increasing autonomy.
Ultimately trust is about willingly being vulnerable to someone or something. I think that is why some of my colleagues are upset right now. They see Daniel's donation as a breach of that trust. I get that, and I feel for them.
As we write in the article: """We started building this organization in the summer of 2008 for idealistic reasons, and we are still idealists who think privacy is fundamental to a civilized society.
The best strategy for achieving societal impact through entrepreneurship is consistent, long-term, and value-based ownership. For us, this disqualifies taking outside investment, either through venture capital or going public. Mullvad has instead been growing organically without outside investments. It takes longer but the results are better."""
If I understand correctly, Ries is arguing that the more valuable a company is, the more tempting it becomes to extract that value. Sure, that's why it is important to have principled and long-term shareholders. An organisation's long-term strategic behavior necessarily tries to converge on its goals, set by its shareholders. I recognize that most companies are owned by shareholders who seek to eventually increase their personal wealth. I also recognize that principles almost always get to take a back seat if they cost the shareholders too much money.
Personally I reject the U.S. 1970s corporate law doctrine that the only legitimate purpose of a company is maximizing returns to its shareholders. That's ridiculous. In the case of Mullvad its mission is related to privacy, mass surveillance and censorship, in large part because we believe privacy and the absence of mass surveillance and censorship are part of the foundation of a healthy and thriving society.
As for extracting value to benefit me personally, I don't intend to accrue more than I need. I think I've reached the point where I'm satisfied with my lifestyle and the buffer I have. I've stopped playing the stock market, and instead placed my savings in long-term investments which require a minimum of attention. I'd rather do other things with my time. Obviously I'm also confident in my future earning potential should I catastrophically lose both my company and a large portion of my savings. It is very freeing and I recognize how rare and useful it is to be able to act in line with your values without concern for economic impact. I think it allows me to make better long-term strategic decisions about our companies.
Mostly I just want to maximize my contribution to society. I've toyed with the idea of placing my shares in Mullvad and my other companies in a foundation with some kind of open-source mission. I've also reached out to various non-profits and talked to tax advisors about abstaining from dividends, and have them sent directly to those non-profits. We'll see.
I don't do this for the money anymore. I do it because it is important to me. I wonder if a lot of people commenting or trying to apply social pressure assume that we're worried about the company losing value. Of course I would be sad if colleagues or a lot of customers left us, as I care immensely about both. That doesn't mean I'm willing to betray my principles, or in this case betray Mullvad's mission.
I hope I've managed to answer most of your questions. Please tell me more about what I should do to better understand the power I have over my colleagues, as their employer. What am I missing? Thank you.
> But I am certainly against a company marketing itself as a “defender of personal and human rights and freedom”, yet they are sponsoring a party that obviously doesn’t hold these values
No. Daniel made this donation privately. I own and lead the company too. Both I and several of my colleagues don't like that Daniel made this donation. You are misrepresenting the facts.
> this company will report individuals in the future to deport them maybe, 5 years later they are reporting others for disagreeing with whatever agenda that party is having, it’s always a slippery slope, never think it will end at xyz and that’s it.
You can choose to believe that, but it doesn't make it true.
> Goddammit it’s like companies are ALWAYS destined to turn to evil one way or another, it’s just how long it will take is the question. It’s a reminder that you should always host your own, trust nobody, none.
> what scares me is the mobbing of people against other that have a different opinion than yours, as seen in this thread.
I am dismayed by the anti-intellectual climate in the world as well, but HN is an oasis of empathy and curiosity compared to other platforms. Look at the people I've engaged with. Many of them vehemently disagree with Daniel, and with my position. They understand it, compliment Mullvad, and say they unfortunately have to leave. That's the way political discourse should work.
> Plenty saying they cannot in good conscience support Mullvad, while directly and indirectly giving money to people like Bezos, Musk or Cook, among others, or supporting politicians from both aisles, who have the power to do much worse at a greater scale. I call this hypocrisy, and it is widespread in social media driven mob mentality.
Good point. We should probably be more open about how much good Mullvad has done over the years. I've been so focused on just doing stuff, and not telling people about it.
> I like Mullvad the company, and I know that people might support politics I find despicable. Such is life outside of silly internet echo chambers.
I disagree. This thread contains tons of empathetic people who seem to understand each other, and disagree with each other. It's a breath of fresh air. Sure, there are also some angry posters who don't seem to lean into curiosity, but together we can make them the minority.
> if he can use his influence and access in Mullvad to achieve his party's stated goals, will he?
Not a chance. He is probably the most principled individual I know. Consider our consistent refusal to use Mullvad's platform to promote anything but messaging around free speech, free press, mass surveillance, censorship and privacy. Or our consistent refusal to sell to the horde of venture capitalists, private equity and competitors who have approached us through the years. We're doing this for a small set of political issues, on which we share values.
> It is asking a lot to trust someone who espouses what he does to maintain Mullvad's founding values, and not to exploit Mullvad in pursuit of ideas he values at a very high monetary level.
I'm biased, and have more information than you, but I disagree. We have a 17 year track record.
> I have zero confidence someone supporting what he does and thinks the way he does will protect my traffic, and I sadly cannot use or recommend Mullvad any longer.
I'm sorry to hear that. For what it's worth I think there's nuance in his decision that most people don't see. Of course that doesn't mean I think it was the right decision to make.
Here's something worth considering: why would someone whose ideal is open borders, who has been an animal rights activist, and someone who has led Mullvad for 17 years (with the track record it has), choose to donate to this party? If you like what Daniel and I have done together over the past 17 years, and now vehemently oppose his choice to make this donation, doesn't that make you just a little bit curious?
It made me curious. It didn't change my ultimate stance, but it did temper my emotions about it.
You presume wrong. He has nothing against immigrants as a group. He sees open borders as the ideal, and have since he was a teenager. As far as I can tell the only reason he doesn't actively advocate for it at the moment is because of mismanagement of the government. Something like that. I don't want to say more because I don't want to misrepresent his views.
I disagree. Daniel's private actions does not represent the company. The difference between the private actions of a CEO and an employee's is that if the actions are controversial they are much more likely to affect the company's reputation if a CEO did them than if an employee did them.
Obsessed with building more trustworthy systems.