7. The application is supported by the 2nd petitioner’s supporting affidavit of even date and grounds on the face of the application. 8. The 2nd petitioner depones that the petitioners instituted this petition against the respondent on the grounds that: a) The respondent has allowed and continues to allow inciteful, hateful and dangerous posts on Facebook thereby violating the spirit of Article 33(2) of the Constitution of Kenya. Further, the Respondent benefits from the prioritization of such posts which is an affront to the Constitution of Kenya. b) The respondent has allowed posts that amount to doxing to be published on Facebook and availed such posts to users in Kenya thereby violating Article 31(c) of the Constitution; c) The respondent’s algorithm recommends content that amounts to propaganda for war, hate speech, incitement to violence and advocacy of hatred to Facebook users in Kenya thereby violating their right to dignity under Article 28 of the Constitution and their right not to be subjected to any form of violence or subjected to psychological torture under Article 29 of the Constitution; d) Failure by the respondent to take down content that amounts to propaganda for war, hate speech, incitement to violence and advocacy of hatred has led to the loss of lives thereby violating the right to life as guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution; e) Failure by the respondent to take down content that violates the Facebook Community Standards amounts to unfair administrative action and is a violation of Article 47 of the Constitution; f) The respondent’s preferential treatment of users in some countries as opposed to its treatment of Facebook users in Africa amounts to discrimination on grounds of race, and ethnic and social origin which is a violation of Article 27 of the Constitution; g) The respondent has failed to protect the health and safety of their users by allowing content that amounts to propaganda for war, hate speech, incitement to violence and advocacy for hatred to be published on Facebook thereby violating Article 46 of the Constitution; and h) The respondent’s action has led to the vilification of individuals and destruction of communities thereby violating the core purpose of the Constitution as espoused under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. 9. According to the petitioners, the petition which underscores the violation of the petitioners’ rights by the respondent’s algorithmic design and its failure to carry out effective content moderation, raises a number of substantial questions of law that require the Court’s determination. The 2nd petitioner sets out the substantial issues as follows: i. Protection of human rights in the age of Artificial Intelligence (AI); ii. The duty of social media platforms to moderate content on their platforms; iii. Algorithmic bias and discriminatory AI; iv. The economics of social media platforms and their effect on human rights; v. Intermediary liability for harms caused by social media platforms; vi. Internet governance; and vii. The jurisdiction of this Honorable Court where digital decisions are made in Kenya but have a wider effect. 10. The petitioners assert in view of this, that the matters raised in the petition present and substantial questions of law that are novel and complex. Further the petition has weighty evidence thus the call for a discussion and a variety of interpretations from a number of judges. The petitioners also claim that the instant petition is a precedent setting case that will enable this Court to determine our nation’s digital future on social media platforms. For these reasons and the great public interest therein, the petitioners are certain that this application is justified and so pray that it be allowed. 11. Furthermore, the petitioners aver that this Court has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this The Judiciary of Kenya Doc IDENTITY: 2256051208128601561718914604 Tracking Number:OOEX9A2025 2/23