Hello, and welcome to Twitter 2022 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. Now I'll turn the call over to your host today, Krista Bessinger, Vice President of Investor Relations. Hi, everyone, and welcome to Twitter's 2022 Annual Shareholder Meeting. Sean Edgett, our General Counsel, will kick things off with the business of today's meeting, and after that, we'll take your questions. Please bear with us as we go through just a few quick disclosures at the beginning of the presentation. Thank you. With that, I'd like to turn it over to Sean. Thanks, Krista. Hi, everyone, and thank you again for joining us today. I'm Sean Edgett, General Counsel of Twitter. I'm now gonna cover today's formal business, which is described in our proxy statement for this meeting. After voting on these matters, we will announce preliminary voting results and adjourn the formal part of the meeting. We'll then open things up to a Q&A session. I'm now calling the 2022 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to order. I will act as chairperson of this meeting. Evan White, our Director of Legal, has agreed to record the minutes of today's meeting. Broadridge Financial Solutions, our proxy service provider, has indicated via affidavit that notice of internet availability of the proxy materials was mailed on or about April 12th, 2022 to all stockholders of record at the close of business on March 30th, 2022, the record date for this meeting. We have at this meeting a list of our stockholders as of that date. That affidavit, together with copies of the notice of internet availability of proxy materials, the proxy statement, and the proxy will be filed with the minutes of the meeting. Tony Carideo has been appointed the Inspector of Election. He has signed an oath of office promising to execute faithfully the duties of the Inspector of Election. The oath of office will be filled and filed with the minutes of this meeting. The Inspector of Election has determined that a sufficient number of shares entitled to vote at this meeting are present in person or by proxy to constitute a quorum, and we may proceed with business. If you've already voted by proxy and do not wish to change your vote, your vote will be cast as you previously instructed, and no further action is necessary. If you already voted by proxy but wanna change your vote, or if you are a record holder and wish to vote, please have your control number in hand and go to www.proxyvote.com to vote or recast your vote. That is the same website referenced in all of our proxy materials. The polls have been open for voting since the beginning of this meeting at 10:00 A.M. Pacific Time. The polls will remain open for each proposal until I announce their closure with respect to such proposal later in the meeting. The proposals to be voted on at this meeting are described in our proxy statement that was made available to all stockholders. Each proposal will be voted on separately. As a reminder, the polls are now open for each proposal. The first item of business is the election of the two directors as set forth in proposal one in the proxy statement. Egon Durban and Patrick Pichette have been nominated by our board of directors to serve as Class III directors until our 2025 Annual Meeting of Stockholders or until their respective successors are duly elected and qualified. I would now like to call the vote on proposal one. The proxy holders will vote the shares in accordance with the instructions provided on the proxy cards, and the proxies solicited by our board of directors will be voted for each of the nominees if no other instructions were given. The second item of business is our say on pay vote described in Proposal 2 in the proxy statement, which is an approval on an advisory basis of the compensation of our named executive officers. I would now like to call the vote on Proposal 2. The proxy holders will vote the shares in accordance with the instructions provided on the proxy cards, and proxies solicited by our board of directors will be voted in favor of this proposal if no other instructions are given. The third item of business is Proposal 3 in our proxy statement to ratify the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers as our independent registered public accounting firm for our fiscal year ending December 31st, 2022. Before we vote, are there any questions for PricewaterhouseCoopers representatives here today? As a reminder, you can ask a question by typing in the box provided on today's virtual meeting platform. Looks like there are no questions, so I would now like to call the vote on Proposal 3. The proxy holders will vote the shares in accordance with the instructions provided on the proxy cards, and proxies solicited by our board of directors will be voted in favor of this proposal if no other instructions are given. The fourth item of business is roposal four in our proxy statement to approve an amendment to our amended and restated certificate of incorporation to declassify our board of directors. I would now like to call the vote on Proposal 4. The proxy holders will vote the shares in accordance with the instructions provided on the proxy cards, and proxies solicited by our board of directors will be voted in favor of this proposal if no other instructions are given. The fifth item of business is Proposal 5 in our proxy statement, which is a proposal regarding a report on risks of the use of concealment clauses, which was brought by one of our stockholders. The representative of the proponent of the stockholder proposal, Ifeoma Ozoma, will have three minutes to present the stockholder proposal. Would Ifeoma please introduce themselves and the proposal? Hello, my name is Ifeoma Ozoma, a member of the Transparency in Employment Agreements Coalition, and I'm here to move proposal number five on behalf of Whistle Stop Capital. Our proposal requests that Twitter's board of directors publish a report assessing the potential risks to the company associated with its use of concealment clauses in the context of harassment, discrimination, and other unlawful acts. Concealment clauses are defined as any employment or post-employment agreement, such as arbitration, non-disclosure, or non-disparagement agreement that Twitter asks employees or contractors to sign, which would limit their ability to discuss unlawful acts in the workplace, including harassment and discrimination. Support for this resolution is warranted given that, one, Twitter has not yet complied with this request. Two, Twitter's practices appear to lag its peers. In fact, just last month, Salesforce joined a growing list of tech companies, including Apple, Google, Expensify, Twilio, and others in committing to limit the scope of its concealment clauses as related to unlawful conduct like discrimination and harassment. Twitter has refused to do the same. Three, Twitter is currently operating under a patchwork of state and international laws, potentially opening the company and its shareholders to regulatory risk. California, where Twitter is headquartered, has prohibitions on concealment clauses related to unlawful conduct. Washington State, New Jersey, and other states have similar laws, and a federal law prohibiting arbitration in the case of sexual harassment and assault was signed by the President in March. Four, The use of concealment clauses may allow Twitter's executives and managers to limit their own accountability and keep actions hidden from external stakeholders. Five, the use of concealment clauses can undermine beneficial diversity and inclusion programs. Concealment clauses restrict an employee's ability to speak about their own experience. They are antithetical to an organization focused on enabling public communication. If Twitter's ownership changes, one would hope that any vocal advocate for free speech would be invested in Twitter's workforce exercising those speech principles and ensuring accountability for any misconduct. For all these reasons, we ask shareholders to vote for proposal number five regarding the use of concealment clauses. Thank you for your comments. For the reasons detailed in our opposition statement included in our proxy statement, our board of directors believes that this proposal is not in the best interest of Twitter or our shareholders and recommends a vote against the proposal. For further information, please see our opposition statement. I would now like to call the vote on Proposal 5. The proxy holders will vote the shares in accordance with the instructions provided on the proxy cards, and proxies solicited by our board of directors will be voted against the proposal if no other instructions are given. The 6th item of business is Proposal 6 in our proxy statement, which is a proposal regarding a director candidate with human and/or civil rights expertise, which was brought by one of our shareholders. The representative of the proponent of the stockholder proposal, Natasha Lamb, will have three minutes to present the stockholder proposal. Would Natasha please introduce themselves and the proposal? Good morning. My name is Natasha Lamb, and I move proposal number 6 on behalf of Arjuna Capital, asking Twitter's board to nominate a board candidate with a high level of human and civil rights expertise. The board is opposing this proposal because they say it does not align with the needs of the business. Given the events of the last two months, I don't know how Twitter can continue to make that argument that somehow addressing human and civil rights concerns, including free speech at the highest level of governance, is not a business imperative. Human and civil rights abuse has been a key risk on Twitter's platform for years. Twitter has been used to proliferate racism, sexism, hate, violence, and disinformation, threatening human and civil rights, an informed electorate, and our democracy. While Elon Musk oversimplifies Twitter's problem as free speech, which squarely falls under the office of human and civil rights, solving the problem is not so simple. If it were, Twitter's track record would not be so poor, oversight would not be failing, and the company would not be the target of the most public takeover in our generation. Elon Musk's efforts to purchase Twitter highlight the complexity of protecting free speech while battling disinformation, racist and sexist abuse, violence, and other human and civil rights violations. While the company has built some internal scaffolding, adding a team, a task force, and a council, these efforts are clearly insufficient. Twitter has focused on the symptoms instead of the root cause of its human and civil rights issues, which is a business model fueled by clickbait and user profiling. The platform's algorithms and advertisement practices amplify harmful content. Most recently, the Buffalo mass shooting. The BBC reports the company has radicalized people by enabling advertisers to target neo-Nazis, homophobes, and hate groups. Congress recently issued a subpoena to Twitter after it failed to provide complete information on how its platform may have contributed to the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. The ties between the company's business model and threats to civil and human rights cannot be ignored. As investors, we don't believe the answer to Twitter's problem will be found by crowning another social media emperor, but by embedding human and civil rights consideration in its core strategy at the highest level of governance, its board. Thank you very much for your consideration. Thank you for your comments. For the reasons detailed in our opposition statement, including in our proxy statement, our board of directors believes that this proposal is not in the best interest of Twitter or our stockholders, and recommends a vote against the proposal. For further information, please see our opposition statement. I would now like to call the vote on Proposal 6. The proxy holders will vote their shares in accordance with the instructions provided on the proxy cards, and proxies solicited by our board of directors will be voted against this proposal if no other instructions are given. The seventh item of business is Proposal 7 in our proxy statement, which is a proposal regarding an audit analyzing the company's impacts on civil rights and non-discrimination, which was brought by one of our stockholders. The representative of the proponent of the stockholder proposal, Ethan Peck, will have three minutes to present the stockholder proposal. Would Ethan please introduce the proposal? In its statement opposing our proposal, the board spends an astonishing number of words saying nothing, further proving why our proposal is necessary and shareholders ought to support it. All our proposal requests is an audit of the very DEI policies that Twitter is so eager to remind us are central to the company's values, culture, and operations. Well then, we're taking you at your word. DEI is in fact central to Twitter. Fine. What are you hiding? Why advise against an audit of DEI? It's your perfectly moral policy that you are proud of, right? In reality, DEI is immoral and entirely illegal. It explicitly violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in no uncertain terms. For example, these policies include race-based hiring quotas, $ millions in contributions to corrupt organizations to, quote, "amplify black voices," a black-only official Twitter account, as well as others for Asians, Arabs, women, LGBTQIA and Latinx, but none for men or whites, and also employee trainings in these exclusionary and bigoted ideas. This is the true nature of DEI. It's not rocket science. No matter the justification, treating employees and users differently based on immutable characteristics such as skin pigmentation or reproductive organs is the literal definition of discrimination. Although diversity, equity, and inclusion sounds benign, it's an Orwellian slogan for identity socialism and exclusion, and a corporate name for critical race theory. CRT discriminates against white people by assuming that they are inherently and irredeemably racist oppressors, and it is also bigoted against black people by positing that they are inherently and irredeemably powerless victims who can't succeed without special privileges. It's the bigotry of no expectations, and it also discriminates against all other ethnicities who get used as a political football in this Marxist race struggle. DEI is a complete assault on merit, truth, and the enlightenment values upon which our nation was founded on. It replaces content of character for characteristics that are skin deep and then weaponizes those immutable characteristics to intentionally sow division. It's immoral, illegal, and runs against the interests of shareholders. If the Twitter board doesn't think so, then it should prove it to shareholders with our proposed audit. Mr. Musk, if you're listening, we hope that you'll join us in voting for this proposal. You once called wokeness a mind virus. We agree. With your help, let's cure the DEI mind virus spreading inside Twitter. Fellow shareholders, it's on our dime that Twitter is implementing these immoral and blatantly discriminatory policies, and in doing so, the company is stealing from us in plain sight. By not hiring based on merit, the company is violating its fiduciary responsibility and is intentionally selling short its productivity and its future. Are you really surprised then when leaked videos expose Twitter employees, excuse me, tweets, as the lazy, entitled radicals that they are? We're paying these people high salaries to slack off and run a Marxist experiment inside our company. It's long past time to put an end to it, and it's our responsibility as shareholders to do so. A good place to start is diagnosing the extent of the problem, which is what this proposal sets out to do. For the reasons detailed in our opposition statement included in our proxy statement, our board of directors believes that this proposal is not in the best interest of Twitter or our stockholders and recommends a vote against the proposal. For more information, please see our opposition statement. I would now like to call the vote on Proposal 7. The proxy holders will vote their shares in accordance with the instructions provided on the proxy cards, and proxies solicited by our board of directors will be voted against this proposal if no other instructions are given. The 8th item of business is Proposal 8 in our proxy statement, which is a proposal regarding an electoral spending report, which was brought by one of our stockholders. The representative of the proponent of the stockholder proposal, John White, will have three minutes to present the stockholder proposal. Would John please introduce himself and the proposal? Good morning. On behalf of the New York State Comptroller, Tom DiNapoli, Trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund, holding over 800,000 shares, we urge Twitter, Inc. stockholders to vote for Proposal 8 on the proxy, Proposal Regarding Electoral Spending Report. Companies can face legal, reputational, and financial risks when making political contributions. Comprehensive disclosure of corporate political spending is a well-established best practice. It's in the best interest of shareholders and aligned with long-term shareholder value. Twitter, Inc. does not currently disclose its corporate political spending. Today, shareholders request that the company provide a semi-annual report disclosing the company's policies and procedures for using corporate funds for making political contributions and full disclosure of all such expenditures. This report shall be presented to the board of directors and posted on the company's website within 12 months from the date of today's annual meeting. The fact is shareholders face investment risks when contributions to campaigns, payments to trade associations, expenditures to other tax-exempt groups that may be used for election-related activities are all undisclosed. The Center for Political Accountability, which evaluates political spending policies of public companies, gave Twitter a score of zero out of 100 for transparency and accountability in 2021. In its opposition statement to Proposal 8, the company says that a report disclosing political contributions and spending would be, quote, "An unnecessary expenditure and any cost would far exceed any perceived advantage." End quote. Proponents and other shareholders find the company's opposition statement unconvincing. It's not for the company to decide what information shareholders will find meaningful. Twitter should already be gathering this information regarding all contributions, direct and indirect, and could readily provide this report to shareholders at minimal expense. We urge your support today for this critical governance reform. Shareholders are encouraged to vote for Proposal 8 on the proxy, the shareholder proposal regarding electoral spending reports. Thank you. Thanks. For the reasons detailed in our opposition statement included in our proxy statement, our board of directors believes that this proposal is not in the best interest of Twitter or our stockholders and recommends a vote against the proposal. For further information, please see our opposition statement. I would now like to call the vote on Proposal 8. The proxy holders will vote the shares in accordance with the instructions provided on the proxy card, and proxies solicited by our board of directors will be voted against this proposal if no other instructions are given. The ninth item of business is Proposal 9 in our proxy statement, which is a proposal regarding a report on lobbying activities and expenditures, which was brought by one of our stockholders. The representative of the proponent of the stockholder proposal, Paul Chesser, will have three minutes to present the stockholder proposal. Would Paul please introduce the proposal? I'm Paul Chesser, Director of the Corporate Integrity Project for National Legal and Policy Center. Twitter claims it is transparent about its lobbying activities and expenditures by linking on its website to its federal reports. These reports come nowhere close to what our proposal seeks and don't tell nearly enough about the why and what regarding Twitter's lobbying. We can only see minimal information that only hints at a bigger, disturbing picture that must be disclosed to shareholders. First of all, each report is signed by Twitter's top advocate for the censorship of conservatives, Chief Legal Counsel, Vijaya Gadde. How telling. The same company official creating fog around Twitter's lobbying activities is also the one responsible for shutting down conservative viewpoints. Like the lack of disclosure over what they specifically seek through their lobbying, so also are Ms. Gadde and Twitter secretive about their censorship regime. Two of Twitter's top lobbying issues are content moderation and misinformation. It's no surprise that Twitter wants to keep us in the dark about those activities. After all, Ms. Gadde and Twitter themselves are the master misinformers after their censorship of the New York Post Hunter Biden laptop story a month before the 2020 election. Twitter tried to justify that censorship by labeling it as, quote, "Content obtained through hacking that contains private information." End quote. That was a total lie backed up by 0 evidence. At the same time, Twitter allowed stories to circulate about 50 former national security officials who called the Post story Russian disinformation. Of course, all sane people knew that claim was a lie then. It's still a lie. Yet the propagandists at Twitter allowed it to circulate freely, and they still do. A normal, profitable company would be embarrassed by these revelations, but that's not what Twitter is. Instead, the money-losing company is doubling down on the misinformation shtick. Last week, Twitter announced that Yoel Roth, who was also behind the Hunter Biden article clampdown, was put in charge of the company's so-called Crisis Misinformation Policy. Other issues that Twitter lists as lobbying interests are a progressive laundry list, immigration reform, election integrity, voting access, policing reform, and diversity and inclusion. These should fall under the purview of activist groups, not a media company expected to turn a profit. Twitter wasted more than $1.7 million in 2021 on advocacy lobbying, crippling what it spent six years earlier. As was exposed in an undercover video last week, Twitter's about ideology, not free speech or profit. It's no wonder so many Twitter employees are terrified that Elon Musk is buying the company and plans to turn their lying progressive playground into a true free speech platform. Cleaning up this mess can't come soon enough. Thank you. For the reasons detailed in our opposition statement included in our proxy statement, our Board of Directors believes that this proposal is not in the best interest of Twitter or our shareholders and recommends a vote against the proposal. For further information, please see our opposition statement. I would now like to call the vote on Proposal 9. The proxy holders will vote the shares in accordance with instructions provided on the proxy cards, and proxies solicited by our Board of Directors will be voted against this proposal if no other instructions are given. That concludes the voting at today's meeting, and the polls for each matter to be voted on at this meeting are now closed. The Inspector of Elections has tallied the votes and will now announce the preliminary results. Thank you, Sean. Based on the preliminary voting results of shares represented by valid proxies and ballots on file as of this time, one director nominee, Patrick Pichette, has been elected to serve until the 2025 annual meeting or until his successor is duly elected and qualified. Egon Durban has not received a majority of votes as defined in Twitter's bylaws. The stockholders on an advisory basis have voted to approve the compensation of the company's named executive officers. PricewaterhouseCoopers has been ratified as the company's independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31st, 2022. The proposal to approve an amendment to the company's amended and restated certificate of incorporation to declassify its board of directors has not been approved. The stockholder proposal regarding a report on risks of the use of concealment clauses has been approved. The stockholder proposal regarding a director candidate with human and/or civil rights experience has not been approved. The stockholder proposal regarding an audit analyzing the company's impacts on civil rights and non-discrimination has not been approved. The stockholder proposal regarding an electoral spending report has been approved. The stockholder proposal regarding a report on lobbying activities and expenditures has not been approved. Thank you so much. These are the preliminary results of voting. Please note that while Mr. Durban has not received a majority of the votes cast in favor of his election, under Twitter's director resignation policy, as set forth in our corporate governance guidelines, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will promptly consider whether to accept his resignation and will promptly submit such recommendation for consideration by the board. The final voting results will be reported in a report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and in a report of the Inspector of Elections, which will be filed with the minutes of this meeting. Since there is nothing further to bring before the stockholders at this time, this concludes the formal portion of this annual meeting of stockholders, and this meeting is adjourned. I will now turn it back over to Krista for Q&A. Great. Thank you, Sean. Our CEO, Parag Agrawal, will start with just a few opening remarks, and then we'll turn right to people's questions. Parag, I'll turn it over to you. Thank you, Krista. Hello, everyone. Before we turn to your questions, I'd first like to thank you for your continued interest and support. Twitter has a purpose and relevance that impacts the entire world, and I'm deeply proud of our teams and inspired by our work, which has never been more important. On April 25, we entered into an agreement to be acquired by an entity owned by Elon Musk. We are working through the transaction process. For regulatory and other reasons, we cannot discuss the transaction today. Even as we work towards closing this transaction, our teams and I remain focused on the important work we do every day to serve the public conversation. We're continuing to make progress on our priorities and remain focused on delivering value to all of our customers. The decisions we make and the work we do now not only bolster how we navigate through this time, but also support the long-term success of Twitter, which I cared about deeply. With that, Sean, Ned, and I are happy to take your questions. Thank you, Parag. Now we'll turn to questions. Joining us for the Q&A portion of the meeting is our CEO, Parag Agrawal, Ned Segal, our CFO, and Sean Edgett, our General Counsel. We have about 15 minutes for questions and only confirmed shareholders as of the record date are permitted to ask questions. Questions can be asked by typing in the box provided on today's virtual meeting platform. We've received a number of questions that shareholders previously submitted during registration, so we'll start by answering those. Note that due to time constraints, a shareholder will be permitted no more than two questions. If there are any matters of individual concern to a shareholder, we ask that you please email your question to ir@twitter.com. We'll try to answer all questions asked that meet the requirements stated. Due to time constraints, however, or if questions appear to be of individual concern, we may not answer the question during the meeting. We thank you in advance for your cooperation. Our first question is, what happens to the stock I own if someone successfully buys Twitter and makes it a private company? I'll take that one. This is Sean. Thank you for that question. We have definitely received and are continuing to receive a number of your questions related to the pending acquisition of Twitter, and obviously we understand this is an area as shareholders you wanna discuss. I'll go back to what Parag said earlier, which is for regulatory and other reasons related to the transaction, we aren't able to address these questions today, and we won't be making any statements about the transaction. I would direct you, and for more information about the proposed transaction, to take a look at our preliminary proxy statement for the upcoming special meeting of stockholders, which we filed with the SEC on May seventeenth of this year, and of course, our other SEC filings, including the final proxy statement when it becomes available. Thank you, Sean. Our next question is, will the board continue to ban hate speech, conspiracy posts, and false election information? Will they ban individuals or politicians who post such misinformation? Thank you for the question. This is Parag. We remain focused on limiting harm from misinformation on our service through the policies we have around civic integrity, COVID misinformation, manipulated media. We recently announced and started enforcing a new policy around crisis misinformation that applies to some conversation about the war in Ukraine. I'd like to remind folks that our misinformation policies do not address misinformation in a broad-based way, but in narrow areas as I enumerated in the specific policies. Beyond these policies, we've also built and launched several product features like interstitials, labels for additional context, prebunks, so as to enable people to find a broader conversation around these topics, as well as more reliable information. Our primary focus is on providing people more context and limiting reach of harmful content. It's only in very rare instances that our policies lead to enforcement that takes content down or bans individuals. More broadly, improving the health of the public conversation on Twitter remains an essential focus area for us, and this applies across our work on product, policy, and enforcement. We continue to evolve all three of these. Our focus remains on decreasing our reliance on user reports before we take action, so that we can be more proactive in improving the health of the public conversation. We also continue to focus on increasing the transparency of our enforcement actions for all of our customers, as well as increasing the consistency that we have in taking these actions at scale. As we do this work, we continue to partner with and seek feedback from governments, civil society groups and industry all around the world in evolving our approach. Thank you, Parag. Our next question is, why block out one political side and not the other? Social media should be fair for both sides. Hi, this is Parag again. Thank you for your question. Silencing political commentary is antithetical to our commitment to free speech. We operate our platform and our service all over the world in very different political contexts, and use a consistent set of Twitter rules all around the world in order to improve the public conversation on the service. Our tools and processes aim to enforce these rules without any bias and do so dispassionately and equally for all users, regardless of their background, political affiliation, all around the world. Going beyond just politics, we want to show all sides of the conversation about sports, crypto, and any topic out there. In highlighting a diversity of viewpoints in the public conversation is what makes Twitter special and allows us to increase our impact all around the world and grow our service. Our goal is to earn trust broadly, and in order to do so, we continue to increase transparency and choice for people. We take responsibility for mistakes we make. We seek input and feedback. We strive to learn from our mistakes and continue to evolve our approach as a result. As I said, we are constantly improving our product, our policies, and our processes in order to earn more trust. We believe Twitter is a place for different voices and perspectives to be heard. Our rules are enforced objectively on content and accounts, and our policies remain neutral to political identity and ideology. Thank you, Parag. Our next question is, why does the board own very little Twitter stock? This is Sean again, and thank you for this question. To zoom out a little bit to say we definitely believe stock ownership by our directors aligns their interests with the interests of our stockholders. That's one of the reasons why our board of directors established stock ownership guidelines for our non-employee directors who receive equity grants as part of their compensation. Under those guidelines, which must be met by the later of September 2023 or two years after a director's appointment, each of our non-employee directors must own a number of shares of Twitter stock equal to the value of 2x or 2 x the annual cash board retainer of the prior year. All of our directors are either in compliance or on track to comply with these guidelines by the applicable deadlines. I'd just point you to our proxy statement for this meeting on this topic for more information. Thank you. Our next question is: why doesn't Twitter allow people to rank the importance of the tweets they send and give followers the ability to change their notifications accordingly? Also, why doesn't Twitter allow users to sort who they follow by category? Thanks for sharing your thoughts and suggestions. First, we love hearing from people who use the service around how we can do better to improve the service for the varied use cases for Twitter. With regards to your specific ideas and suggestions, we agree that ranking and relevance are critical to the Twitter experience. There's a lot more content created on Twitter than anyone can consume, so surfacing the most relevant content around what's happening is really important for the product to work for our customers. You noted notifications. As we've continued to do work on improving the quality and relevance of notifications, we are able to surface what's happening to people based on their interests in a timely way. This has allowed for Twitter to grow in the way we have grown over the years. We work really hard at the same time to decrease the amount of work people have to do, whether it is when they're creating content or when they're consuming content. As a result of removing this friction, we are able to provide more value to our customers. In terms of your suggestions around the ability to customize and organize the Twitter experience, this is a use case we've heard from many of our more sophisticated users, and we've seen people use features that we've built, like lists, to organize accounts based on categories and topics. We've also enabled people to pin these lists within the Twitter experience to create the tabbed experience that you describe. At the same time, for most users who are not yet fully sophisticated in the use of our service and product, and often during onboarding, we've also seen value by making things easy for our customers to work like followable topics, to work where we build systems and models to discover and detect what people might be most interested in and surface that content to them without them having to do all of the work. Thank you again for your suggestions. We're so grateful that you're such an active user of the service. Thank you, Parag. The next question is: can you explain how the compensation committee determined the CEO's compensation? Thank you for that question. I'd just start by saying our executive compensation philosophy is definitely oriented towards incentivizing leadership to innovate on our business strategy and enhance our product offerings. And so to do that, we are seeking primarily to do four main things. The first is recruit and retain executives that can deliver long-term value. The second is align executive interests with those of our stockholders. The third is to promote a healthy approach to risk-taking. And the fourth is provide rewards for performance that are commensurate relative to peers in the market. We review our approach to compensation plan design annually, and we make adjustments periodically based on a variety of factors, including business needs, stockholder feedback, competitive market assessments, and regulatory considerations, among others. In setting our CEO compensation, the board considers many factors, including benchmarks for CEO compensation versus our peers, which you can find in the proxy statement, to provide compensation that's aligned with the market. Based on the compensation peer criteria and input from management, the compensation committee reviewed and approved a list of companies used to inform compensation practices. Our compensation committee then takes into consideration such comp data from our peers and relies on the business experience of its members and on the recommendations of management to approve compensation packages that are competitive and appropriate for our executive officers. There's a lot more that we put in our proxy statement, so I would refer you there for a more fulsome explanation detailing around the compensation setting. Thank you. Thank you, Sean. The next question is: what are you doing about accounts that were created a long time ago and never used? Are abandoned accounts removed after a period of time? Thanks for the question. There are many accounts on Twitter that are not active and not in use on any given day. Keep in mind, though, that as a customer of the service, it may not always be possible to recognize which accounts are active or not, since not all signs of activity are publicly visible. It's also important to remember that many accounts which are not currently active reactivate over time. Sometimes this happens due to major events. Sometimes it's because people find new use cases and reasons to come back to Twitter, and sometimes it's because of timely and relevant emails and notifications that we send to people. Having a pre-existing account removes friction when people find these use cases and reactivate, and has us showing them value faster and sooner. That being said, we do have processes in place to remove inactive accounts if and as we need them. Thank you, Parag. Our next question is: What are you doing to increase the representation of women on your board of directors? Thank you for this question. We absolutely believe our board of directors should be diverse. We aim for our board to reflect the diversity of voices on our platform and have actively recruited to incorporate more diversity into our board. Our corporate governance guidelines require our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee to consider a broad range of backgrounds, experiences, and diversity in all aspects of that word, including gender and ethnic diversity. As it stands, we have three women on our board, one of whom was elected just last year. We strive to be the most inclusive and diverse technology company, and our board will continue to value inclusion and diversity when seeking and evaluating board candidates. I'd refer you again to our proxy statement for more information on this. Thanks. Thank you, Sean. Our next question is: What is Twitter doing to manage and limit misinformation on climate change, especially the purposeful manipulation of the Twitter platform to create confusion about the state of climate change science, causes, impacts, and solutions? Thanks for your question. Now more than ever, meaningful climate action from all of us is critical. The climate conversation on Twitter has been expanding and is global in nature. Even since 2021, the conversation around sustainability has grown by over 150%. We've seen an increase of 60% around terms like restoring and rebalancing, and we've seen the discussion around waste reduction up by 100% and around decarbonization by about 50%. This is not accidental. We have been doing active work in our product. Last year, we introduced a dedicated topic to help people find personalized conversation about climate change. To support the conversation around COP26 late last year, we rolled out a series of prebunks providing credible, authoritative information across our Explore, Search, and Trends products, including the science backing climate change and global warming. Misleading advertisements that contradict the scientific consensus on climate change are prohibited on Twitter in line with our inappropriate content policy. Our approach is informed by authoritative sources like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Reports. We've also been a strong partner with the climate community through Ads for Good grants, where we provide free advertising to several partners. Beyond this work on the service, we as a corporation have also been focused on reducing our own carbon footprint. We've lowered our emission for the second straight year, even as the company grew, and we've joined the Science Based Targets initiative. Thank you again for your question. Thank you. The next question is: why are there 8,000 employees? Please provide specifics. How top-heavy is your structure? Great. Thank you, Krista. This is Ned, and I'll take the question. So we've grown our head count over the last couple of years to support the opportunity in front of us to serve Twitter to more people and to better monetize the service. Now, as the macroeconomic environment has evolved around us in the recent months, we recently chose and shared in a tweet from Parag, that we chose to significantly slow our hiring and backfilling when there is attrition at the company, as well as to reduce our non-labor spend to better reflect the economic environment in which we're operating today. We continue to see a big opportunity to serve Twitter to more people and to better monetize the service, but we'll approach it, with a more measured thinking around how we resource the opportunities that we see. As our expenses have grown, we've focused our hiring more on engineering and product than on other areas to ensure that we continue to develop scalable technology solutions to the opportunities that we see. Thank you for the question. Thank you, Ned. The next question is: Privacy is a top concern. How will you help consumers reestablish user privacy and the ownership of their own information? I'll take that one. This is Sean, and thank you for this question. We agree, privacy is a top concern for us too. We believe at Twitter that it's also a fundamental right for people using our service. Twitter is obviously a public forum, and we serve the public conversation, so we use privacy as a guiding star that informs all of our work. Privacy and data protection are at the core of how we design and build at Twitter, and protecting people's privacy is always a priority. We have a lot of information on our corporate website about our privacy work, so I'd refer folks there. Thanks. Thank you, Sean. The next question is: What additional steps is Twitter taking to prevent misinformation from running rampant and impacting elections? Thank you for the question. This is Parag. We have a policy around civic integrity, which is designed to be used during elections or other civic events. Our enforcement around this policy ensures that people are able to get reliable information around how to participate in elections. Beyond just enforcing this policy, we do a lot of work to provide people context around these elections and civic processes all around the world. Thinking about the United States, as primaries kick off ahead of the U.S. midterm elections later this year, we've taken important steps to elevate more context and reliable information about the elections. We've began rolling out account labels for candidates who are running for the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives or governor that qualifies for the general ballots. These labels provide people context around who the candidates are. We've also surfaced prebunks with localized information specific to election processes so that people are able to participate in elections without being misinformed about how to participate. These prebunks are shared prominently across our product in search and our explore tab, and can also be attached to trends when appropriate. We've also started an outreach program to train state and local election administrators on how to make reliable information available to constituents through our platform. Taking a step back, we recognize that people come to Twitter looking for information, and we take our responsibility to ensure the reliability of this information, especially when it comes to how they can participate effectively in civic processes like elections. We will have more to share about our work as we approach the midterm elections later this year. As always, our goal remains to make it easy for people to find credible information on Twitter and to limit the spread of potentially harmful and misleading content. Thank you. It looks like we have time for one final question. Our final question is: Certain Twitter accounts are suspended for unjustified reasons. What is the company and the board going to do to prevent these types of wrongful suspensions and protect free speech? Thank you for the question. As I said earlier, our goal is to earn trust broadly from people who use Twitter. A lot of our work goes into evolving policies, product, and our enforcement, as in service of ensuring that the conversation on Twitter is healthy and enables a diverse set of voices, points of views, and conversation to not just exist, but thrive on our service. We've been very focused in ensuring that our enforcement actions are consistent, and we've made a lot of progress around providing increased transparency when we take enforcement actions. As we do this, we strive to take enforcement actions with urgency before harm occurs. In fact, our focus has been on taking action even before customers have had an opportunity to report violations through our reporting flows. This is enabled by the increased use of automation and machine learning, and combining these with manual enforcement when additional context is important. As we do this work, we do make mistakes. We have processes that allow people to appeal our enforcement actions or contact us for more context when an enforcement action has been taken against their account. More information around how to do this is available in our help center, and we ensure that we are responsive to these appeals, if and when we make mistakes. Thank you again for your question. Thank you. Thank you, Parag. One last note is that there will be a replay available as well as a transcript following this meeting, which will be posted on our investor relations website. With that, I'd like to turn it back over to you, Parag, for your closing remarks. Thank you, Krista. Thank you everybody for taking the time to join us today. We really appreciate all of your questions and your continued interest in Twitter. Thanks again. Thank you. The event has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect your lines. The host has ended this call. Goodbye.