It should be clear by now how the party donation relates to this. Mullvad does not condone it, nor condemn it. It most likely was a bad idea; most things where there are a multitude of conflicting opinions necessarily are. But societies need a great diversity of ideas, initiatives and organizations who can be tested and sifted until the best ones remain. Ideally through rational debate.
Daniel's rationale and points of view can be read on his personal blog.
Mullvad will continue to keep its values and mission separate from the broader views of its founders. Not least because the founders have always been in strong disagreement on important issues, including this one. This narrow focus has served us well for 17 years and will do so going forward too.
So they said nothing at all?