Post explicitly frames corporate power imbalance and institutional harm. Advocates for individual right to remedy and communication. Platform structure enables speech and community deliberation.

Narrative asserts author's equal standing to demand reasoned treatment from powerful corporation; post itself is act of asserting equal voice.

No direct evidence of discrimination on protected status grounds. Post does not engage with Article 2 directly.

Post frames suspension as hostage-taking; author argues for security of assets and services. Platform allows narration of security violation.

Narrative describes catch-22 structure as form of coercion: locked out of console, cannot pay bill, cannot access support. Explicitly frames as unjust institutional arrangement.

No direct reference to torture or cruel treatment. Emotional distress implicit but not focal point.

Post asserts author's right to be treated as person with standing to demand negotiation. Platform structure recognizes author as rights-bearing subject.

Narrative implies AWS enforcement is selective and punitive rather than equal. Author argues for equal treatment in dispute resolution. Platform allows equal voice to all posters.

Core plea is for remedy: human conversation, account restoration, billing review. Explicitly requests 'path to a real person.' Platform structure enables appeal to community for remedy.

No direct reference to arrest or detention. Domain lockout analogous but not literal capture.

Entire narrative is complaint about absence of fair process: no human review, no appeal mechanism, automated systems, locked out of remedial channels. Author explicitly asks for human judgment. HN platform enables public fair trial by community.

Author argues charges are wrong but treated as guilty without review. Frames AWS as having reversed burden: author must pay before being heard. Post itself is assertion of innocence and demand for proof.

Post describes AWS access to CloudWatch metrics and billing history as locked away; implies right to privacy of own data was violated by lockout. HN post itself is public disclosure of what author likely wished to discuss privately.

Author describes lockout as removal of ability to move within service: cannot log in, cannot access console, cannot use API. Post on HN is exercise of freedom to move between platforms and seek help.

No reference to asylum, nationality, or state persecution. Not applicable to corporate dispute.

No reference to nationality or change of nationality. Not applicable.

Post frames business suspension as violation of domain/email security; author's family and business email were held hostage. AWS acts as quasi-state actor over digital property.

Post describes domain, email, website as author's property held hostage. Argues for right to use and control own assets. Does not explicitly invoke property rights language but narrative is property-centered.

No direct reference to conscience, religion, or thought. Post is about institutional procedure, not belief.

Post is explicit exercise of Article 19: author was silenced by AWS (no callbacks, emails bounce, forms disabled, phone blocked), now exercising right to speak publicly. HN platform amplifies this speech. Author argues AWS suppressed information (CloudWatch metrics, billing transparency). Post itself demonstrates platform enabling free expression.

Post appeals to Hacker News community for collective problem-solving ('Has anyone gotten through this?'). Author seeks to associate with others with similar grievances. HN platform structure enables free association and peer support without gatekeeping.

Author argues AWS denies participation in own case: no human contact, no voice in decision-making, locked out of all channels. Post is assertion of right to participate in resolution of charges against oneself.

Post describes business suspension as loss of income: domain down, email down, website down means 'business email' and website are gone. Author frames this as threat to livelihood. HN post itself is appeal for social/economic security through community support.

Post implies AWS suspension removes author's ability to continue work; no recourse to switch providers (phone blocked, account tied to domain). Describes dependency as coercive constraint on choice.

Post describes 4-day crisis of email bouncing imminently; implies entitlement to stable service. Weak signal; primarily about service reliability rather than rest/leisure.

Post implies business disruption threatens food/income security ('business email'). Author argues for basic security: access to own domain and email. Platform enables appeal for community support as safety net.

Weak signal. Post does not directly address education, but infrastructure suspension could impede ability to learn/develop further. Primarily about service access, not education.

Author's domain, email, website are products of work and creativity now held hostage. Post itself is creative assertion of grievance. Implies right to fruits of labor.

Post argues AWS violates reasonable institutional order (due process, fair hearing, human contact). Author appeals to Hacker News community as alternative institutional order. Post embodies assertion that international/community order should protect individuals from arbitrary corporate power.

Post implicitly argues AWS has responsibilities: to respond to disputes, to provide human contact, to respect due process. Author frames complaint as AWS failing its duties, not author claiming unbounded rights.

No evidence of misuse of rights or claims. Post does not invoke Article 30 directly or attempt to negate other rights.