Nigel Farage echoed American right-wing talking points today in the European Parliament’s meeting with Mark Zuckerberg, claiming that Facebook was censoring conservative voices, citing a heavy drop in engagement on his own page, President Trump’s page, and the pages of “other conservative commentators.” Farage, a British politician who was instrumental in the Brexit vote to leave the EU, currently represents the UK in the European Parliament, which is a legislative body of the EU.

Farage claimed that those with “right-of-center political opinions” had been affected by a change in Facebook algorithms in January of this year, and that “on average, we’re down about 25 percent over a course of this year.” (It was not clear where Farage was drawing his data from.)

Farage said that he had been watching the American hearings closely, and asked whether Facebook was a “neutral” political platform, seemingly mirroring Sen. Ted Cruz’s line of questioning from the Senate hearing last month. (Leave.EU, the pro-Brexit campaign led by Nigel Farage, used Cambridge Analytica, as did Cruz in his 2016 campaign.) Following Zuckerberg’s testimony, the House Judiciary Committee set up yet another hearing, mostly focusing on the claimed censorship of conservatives like social media personalities Diamond and Silk.

Farage did not mention Diamond and Silk, but he did briefly acknowledge the role of Facebook in the surprise right-wing victories in the Brexit election, the Trump election, and the Italian elections. He said that “it was social media that allowed people to get behind the back of mainstream media.”

Farage played a significant role in the events that led to Facebook’s ongoing data-sharing scandal and the scrutiny under which the company finds itself today. According to The Guardian, Farage is close friends with Robert and Rebekah Mercer, the major American conservative donors behind Cambridge Analytica, as well as Steve Bannon, who is closely linked with Cambridge Analytica. In March, whistleblower Christopher Wylie called Cambridge Analytica’s misuse of Facebook data “cheating in our democratic process,” and said that it may have swayed the outcome in the Brexit election.

Farage did not mention his relationship with Cambridge Analytica in his questions, and he suggested that before the recent algorithm change, Facebook had merely been an instrument for successful grassroots conservative campaigns. Now those campaigns are being “discriminated against.”

Later, Zuckerberg responded briefly, saying, “I can commit to you here today that we have never and will not make decisions about what content is allowed or how we do ranking on the basis of a political orientation. So that’s an important philosophical point to me that I’m proud to commit to.”

The full text of Farage’s questions for Mark Zuckerberg follows.

Thank you. I was saying as the largest user of Facebook in all the EU institutions, in terms of followers, in terms of engagement, so I’m your best client here in the room. I have no idea what the value of that is, but I’m pleased to see you as I hope you are me. The one slight problem I have, I’m watching very carefully the testimony on Capitol Hill, time and again people ask you, “Is this a neutral political platform?” And you come up with the same line again and again. It’s well-crafted. You say, “Facebook is a platform for all ideas.” Historically, of course, it’s true that through Facebook and other forms of social media, there is no way that Brexit or Trump or the Italian elections could ever possibly have happened. It was social media that allowed people to get behind the back of mainstream media. Now perhaps you’re horrified by this creation of yours and what it’s led to. I don’t know. But what is absolutely true is since January of this year, you changed your modus operandi, you changed your algorithms, and it has led directly to a very substantial drop in views and engagements for those who have got right-of-center political opinions. The facts are very clear. Just look at President Trump’s numbers. On a much smaller scale, look at mine. Look at thousands of other conservative commentators. On average, we’re down about 25 percent over a course of this year. And you know, that’s happening on a platform for all ideas. I’m not talking here, Mr. Zuckerberg, about extremism. I’m not talking about encouraging violence. I’m not talking about hatred of anybody. I’m talking about people who have majority mainstream opinions, and I feel they’re being willfully discriminated against. What’s interesting to me is, who decides what’s acceptable? The people you referred to earlier, the third-party fact-checkers. Who are these people? Why is there no transparency in this process at all? I’m not usually someone who calls for legislation [pause] on the international stage. But I’m starting to wonder if we need a social media bill of rights to protect free speech. Would you accept that today Facebook is not a platform for all ideas that is operated impartially?