| About HN HRCB
HN HRCB is a mirror of Hacker News that
evaluates every story's linked content against the 30 articles and preamble of the UN Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. Each evaluation produces a Human Rights Compatibility Bias (HRCB) score showing how the
content's editorial and structural signals align with fundamental human rights provisions.
A cron worker fetches top HN stories every 10 minutes, retrieves each linked URL's content,
and uses Claude to evaluate it against the UDHR methodology (v3.4). Results are stored
and displayed alongside the standard HN story metadata. The evaluator operates as a
Fair Witness — reporting only what is directly observable, with no
inference beyond the evidence.
Core Construct: HRCB Human Rights Compatibility Bias (HRCB) measures the directional lean
of web content relative to the provisions of the UDHR.
A positive score indicates content that aligns with UDHR provisions; a negative score indicates
content that conflicts with them.
| -1.0 | ← | Strong negative | | | Neutral | | | Strong positive | → | +1.0 | Signal Channels Editorial (E)
What the content says. Analyzes text, arguments, framing, and sourcing. | | Structural (S)
What the site does. Examines privacy, accessibility, tracking, access models. |
Channels are weighted by content type (e.g., editorial: E=0.6, S=0.4).
Combined: (w_E × E) + (w_S × S).
ND vs 0.0 ND (No Data)
No relevant content for this UDHR article. The topic is simply absent. | | 0.0 (Neutral)
Relevant content exists but has balanced signals, netting to zero. | Domain Context Profile (DCP)
Eight domain-level elements provide context modifiers:
| Privacy | ToS | Accessibility | Mission | | Editorial Code | Ownership | Access Model | Ad/Tracking | Evidence Strength | H | High — direct, explicit content with strong sourcing | | M | Medium — clear signal but may be secondary | | L | Low — tangential, indirect, or weakly sourced | Directionality Markers | A | Advocacy — explicitly argues for or against a right | | P | Practice — site infrastructure reflects a rights stance | | F | Framing — presents issues in a rights-aligned or rights-opposed frame | | C | Content — factual content relevant to human rights topics | How Evaluations Work - A URL from HN's top stories is fetched as the unit of analysis
- The page's content type is classified (Editorial, Community, HR, etc.)
- Channel weights are assigned based on content type
- A Domain Context Profile (DCP) is constructed from 8 domain-level elements
- Each of 31 UDHR provisions is scored for editorial and structural signals
- Context modifiers from the DCP are applied to relevant articles
- Aggregate statistics are computed (weighted mean, evidence profile, etc.)
- A final classification is assigned (Strong positive to Strong negative)
Version History | v1 | External-source methodology, domain-level evaluation | | v2 | On-domain-only, ND vs 0.0 distinction, evidence strength | | v3 | URL-level HRCB with E/S channels, content types, rubrics | | v3.3 | Consolidation + roadmap | | v3.4 | Current — Batch protocol, adversarial robustness, JSON output | Technical Details | Schema | 3.4 | Framework | Astro + CF Pages | | Evaluator | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Database | Cloudflare D1 | The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 (Resolution 217 A),
the UDHR is a milestone document in the history of human rights. It has been translated
into over 500 languages. The Declaration consists of a Preamble and 30 Articles covering civil, political,
economic, social, and cultural rights — from the right to life and liberty
(Article 3) to freedom of expression (Article 19) to the right to education (Article 26).
|