A statement on the Tor Project's relationship with Mullvad

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

Citizenship obligations for multiple citizenship is quite interesting from a legal perspective. Some citizenship require taxation regardless of where one live, which makes it possible to have a requirement to pay taxation to multiple countries. Military service is also an other interesting aspect. Giving people with multiple citizenship more rights than people with single citizenship would naturally cause problems, and yet you don't want citizens with different rights as that would indeed create different classes of citizenship.

A person can also end up with one citizenship in a country that allows multiple citizenship, and one which does not, and the citizenship of the person then depend on which country is being asked.

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.

That sounds like an awefully low bar, especially with the current administration, e.g. it currently score as 64th in the freedom of press index [0].

[0]: https://rsf.org/en/country/united-states

I think the people making those "established measures" are just measuring what they think makes a good government and then calling that Democracy.

Mullvad and IVPN both don't do affiliate links. Proton is the only VPN that I can recommend that does use affiliate link marketing. They also do a lot of sponsorships. Proton really is a great company with great products.

https://www.privacyguides.org/en/vpn/

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.

But I agree the F word frequently doesn't advance political discussion.

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?

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.

So they can be political in more things and actually when they make an honest public statement we should be happy since we know clearly what's their standing on important issues of today. I think that should be important to all of us.

The best way to fulfill their mission is to advocate for protecting all rights.

* Focus on more public surveillance

* Leverage the full intelligence capabilities of the state to detect and identify individuals involved in or associated with organized crime.

* Law enforcement authorities have the right to employ wiretapping, surveillance, extensive undercover operations, and preventive detention in cases involving an individual flagged as active within or around [organized crime].

* proactively blacklist and red-flag criminals, preventing them and their relatives from committing crimes altogether, restricting their ability to contact other criminals, access their assets and transfer/receive money (and a bunch of other things)

Does this seem compatible woth TOR and it's values?

(hilauriously the same party, as they're populists, are completely against Chat Control)

> 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?

> "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

It's a great slogan and a terrific ideal. But actually think it through, in real world situations, and you end up with so many edge cases.