Brian all right Facebook, CEO Mark Zuckerberg, reportedly signed off on changing the platforms algorithm after the twenty twenty election, aiming to reduce the spread of information. Big mainstream publishes like CNN the New York Times all posts from highly engaging partisan pages, such as Breitbart became less visible. Lets get the reaction from an emerging social media empire. Ceo John Matze of Parlor John whats. Your reaction to this confession. Well, its just really interesting, because you know parlor believes that people should make the determination for themselves what they think is hyperpartisan or they believe in, and what theyd like to follow and they can choose on their own on parlor. What theyd like to get engaged with. So for me, this kind of Facebook, secret internal algorithm thing

is kind of you know Orwellian, and so we believe in having a simple, chronological algorithm that allows people to filter or out and determine what they want to view, and I think thats the best way. I dont think any of us likes hyperpartisan. You know content, and so when people can decide on their own, what they believe is within the norms of society and what they want to talk about. We let them choose on their own Brien Heres, what Brien Heres? What Facebook said about it? The I assertions in this report are based on sources who have no product decision making authority and are advancing their own narrow impression of how our process works. They know it will be detrimental to their product if they think theyre turning off people lets say: seventy four million people who voted for Donald Trump. How does parler approach something like that? How do you continue to be somebody that doesnt care, if youre, right, left or middle?

We do that by not getting involved and not ranking media outlets based off some kind of internal perception. We dont pretend to be experts about the news or about you know, fact, checking with just offer people a platform and let everybody else decide what they want to engage with, and I think thats the right way to do it. You know stick to what we know, which is social media, delivering content that you can for and doing it in a way thats, not biased. Getting into this kind of business of checking peoples, news articles for potential bias is in itself. You know theres no way for it to be fair. Brian John, you essentially said let everybody govern themselves. So if I go out and im on Parler, I am, but if I write something thats proven to be untrue, youre not going to monitor me its up to the other users to decide whether im worthy of their time or not yeah. Other people will make that determination and other people will fact check you in the comments its natural right.

People have discussions about this, hey, I think thats false or I think thats true or this has been debunked. If you look in the comments you can see, people do that even on things that they might be biased, otherwise about people are fact checking stuff. So let the community decide really thats what it comes down to you: cant change peoples, minds through censorship or through manipulation up to change it through discussion and talking about topics, Brian so John. What about the whole crowded fire? I cant yell fire in a crowded movie house, even though I have freedom of speech, if I say something: unsave Isly, whether its terroristic or im, a member of Al Qaeda, I say, were going to blow up that building. Is that okay with parler? Well, everything has to be legal, so it has to be legally protected by the first amendment. There are some caveats such as Unsolis is sited doing we dont allow are, but otherwise, as long as its legal in the United States follows the first

amendment. That is what is allowed on Parler Brian right, and you guys have already now thirty one million users correct eleven million users. Correct, yes, were well over eleven million accounts and were still growing every day, Brian wow, I imagine more and more people want to go to parler.