>While Tor defends free speech, not all speech is equally compatible with our mission.<p>"We support free speech, unless it's speech we disagree with"<p>They decided it's more important to virtue signal their political ideology than actually working toward a shared goal of security and privacy.
<i>> "We support free speech, unless it's speech we disagree with"</i><p>You can defend someone's right to say something while disagreeing with it, not supporting it, and not wanting to be associated with it. By publishing that blog post, Tor isn't attacking free speech; they are participating in it. As are you, when you respond to them, and I, when I respond to you.<p><i>> They decided it's more important to virtue signal</i><p>I'm always a bit confused by people using the term "virtue signaling". Do you never try to make ethical decisions in your life? If you do, why is it so hard to believe others are, too?
"Virtue signal" is a bad-faith term that means nothing other than its use as a cheap dismissal from people refusing to engage with the content of text, even short text like this. It's not a serious analysis, or a criticism of anything at all.<p>> "We support free speech, unless it's speech we disagree with"<p>Notably, you are using quotes around something that is not a quote. Your interpretation of the text does not flow from the content of the text. Tor's stance is the bog-standard pro free-speech stance, as Hall wrote in characterization of Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".<p>Here's an actual quote from the text. This is the _second sentence_.<p>> We are not terminating the relationship but are setting clear boundaries on our relationship with Mullvad.<p>It is clear that you did not even read the text of the short post you are dismissing as "virtue signaling"!<p>Tor is actually still collaborating with Mullvad and they are no longer "co-branding". They are releasing a statement of their position, which is normal, necessary, and expected.<p>They clarify that Tor is a political project. Security and privacy are human rights goals which necessarily contend with the political context of surveillance and authoritarianism they exist in. The co-founders support of a far-right party, and the implicit support for surveillance that comes with it, are of significant and immediate concern to those who use Tor and Mullvad.
> "We are not terminating the relationship but are setting clear boundaries on our relationship with Mullvad"<p>Organizations that support the right of free speech always have to come to grips with the reality that supporting the right of free speech necessarily involves supporting the right of others to say things that the organization and/or the individuals in the organization didagree with.<p>Tor isn't the first such organization to have to draw distinctions between the principles it espouses and the parties it encounters, nor will it be the last.<p>This type of statement is not an invalidation of one's own principles, it is simply bringing clarity and focus to them. Tor advocates for freedom of speech, not for everything that others use that freedom to say.
That’s not what’s being said. It’s possible to support the freedom of anyone to say anything while excluding those whose beliefs are directly opposed to your goals from your organization.
They explain it in the next sentence: "We strongly oppose rhetoric that threatens other human rights and freedoms."
Freedom of expression is not a right to be listened to or to be agreed with.<p>As it happens, Tor's aim is that they don't know who you are or what you say!
> "... unless it's speech we disagree with"<p>That isn't the standard. The OP addresses an unavoidable, fundamental paradox of freedom: Someone can use their freedom to limit the freedoms of others - if we support that person's freedom, are we supporting freedom or oppression? Are we free to oppress others?<p>The philosopher Karl Popper famously addressed this issue. Here are a couple more ways to think about it:<p>* Freedom as a social contract: I support your freedom and you support mine. If I support yours and you take away mine, you've violated the contract and it's void.<p>* In a society built on freedom, those who use their freedom to take away others' freedom are parasites on society.<p>Arguably, the only speech not to tolerate is intolerance.<p>But that's all philosophy. Practically, nobody believes any freedom is absolute. Freedom of speech is revered and in the first amendement in the US Constitution, but nobody thinks it's absolute: you can't slander people, defraud them, threaten them, create dangerous situations (famously, you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater), etc.