We get that the people who work for a jerk, are not responsible for the bad decisions of that jerk, and it's a shame that they will suffer for his bad decisions, but that's part of the risks you take as an employee, and there are a great many risks you take working for anyone, most of which the owner class refuse to acknowledge. We all recognize that it's a struggle to find new employment, but they always have the option of finding a new company to work for.

The owner is the primary beneficiary of any capital investment. Collateral damage for their decisions is their responsibility, not the consumer.

I agree.. although I also understand people who feel the other way. As a top guy in the company the money he gets is going to be usually much more than an employee and for just existing at the top. So it feels more like company money than someone getting paid for actually putting in the grunt work to keep the company running. Not to mention that nobody is talking about mullvad and the ideology of random coder #26, the actions of the cofounder is always going to be in the same sentence as mullvad. So I understand taking a stance to not feed into that.

However I don't agree with the moral superiority stance that often (not always) comes with that viewpoint. By all means boycott them yourself but I'm not one to push that on others unless it is actually the company itself donating or if their views start poisoning the quality of the service they provide (brave for example)

What I meant is that some people just don't want to give ther money to Mullvad, since some of it will end in his pocket to finance a political party they don't agree with.

No maybe Mullvad can't control the flow of that money into dangerous hands. But the customers can, if they organize.