1. You can't separate it out that cleanly, your beliefs bleed into what you do, no matter who you are or what you believe, and vice versa. I also don't think people start companies that are in contradiction with their values, and they definitely don't remain co-CEOs of them.
2. I don't think they're in conflict, either, I think the company's values are the founders' values and I think those values have been revealed to be bad.
You actually need to demonstrate that though. I have seen no evidence of Mullvad (again, as a company) behaving in a racist or anti-immigrant manner. Until that has been demonstrated, you cannot just say "this guy behaves this way so that is what his company does".
Regardless you can always say "I don't want to give this company money because that indirectly is gonna funnel money to an anti-immigrant political party in Sweden", and that is a perfectly valid position to take. But a lot of people in this thread are clearly going a step further than that, ostensibly in an attempt to give them a greater sense of moral superiority than is necessarily deserved.
> Until that has been demonstrated, you cannot just say "this guy behaves this way so that is what his company does".
No, actually, I can say that. I just did. I'll do it again: I think Mullvad is a bad company if they have the absolute lack of morality and foresight to keep this jerk on as co-CEO, his values must and will influence the company, and they won't get another penny of my money for as long as I live.
You seem to think that my money should be spent according to your misguided and incorrect demands for rigor in my moral thinking, and that's just not how any of this works, buddy. The way it works is this: if Mullvad wants any of my money, they must prove to ME that they are not evil. The burden is entirely on them, as they want my money, not the other way around.
I was entertaining this conversation because you seemed genuinely curious about my opinion initially. I now see that you're actually trying to police my morality and tell me what is or isn't justified about how I make my own moral choices. I am no longer interested in talking to you about this.
I explicitly said it is your right to operate that way. But that doesn't mean your unproven accusations ("the company is evil") are true. It just means that is how you are choosing to operate / that is the standard of evidence you require for your positions. Many people (myself included) disagree with such a low bar: innocent until proven guilty (and not guilt by association) and all that.
2. I don't think they're in conflict, either, I think the company's values are the founders' values and I think those values have been revealed to be bad.