Platform infrastructure prioritizes commercial tracking and data extraction over dignity and privacy protections foundational to human rights framework. No observable content addressing universal dignity.

Platform accessibility to all theoretically present but algorithmic ranking, demonetization, and shadow-banning create de facto inequality. No explicit content addressing equal dignity.

Content moderation policies observable in TOS references show discrimination patterns. LGBTQ+ creators, disabled creators, and minorities report disproportionate enforcement. No anti-discrimination commitment visible in page structure.

No observable safety commitment on page. Harassment, hate speech, and violent content moderation enforcement is inconsistent. Security infrastructure exists but is non-transparent.

No observable content addressing slavery or servitude. Not applicable to video platform structural assessment.

Platform abuse reporting exists but lacks transparency in enforcement. Creators report harassment without meaningful recourse. Page source shows no torture/abuse prevention commitment.

Platform recognition of users as legal persons implicit but no explicit commitment. Account suspension/deletion mechanisms lack due process protections. ND approach regresses toward zero conservatively.

Equal protection before law not implemented algorithmically. Content moderation enforcement varies by creator status, geography, and political alignment. No equality commitment visible in page structure.

No observable content addressing legal remedy rights. Platform ToS pre-empt legal jurisdiction but no explicit remedy denial visible in page head.

Arbitrary detention/removal of accounts documented extensively. Content strikes, demonetization, and suspensions lack transparent criteria. No due process protections in page visible.

Fair and public hearing rights absent for content moderation. Appeals process exists but lacks independence and transparency. No judicial review mechanism visible.

Retroactive moderation enforcement occurs. Content removal retroactively labeled as violating policies. No presumption of innocence in algorithmic enforcement model.

Extensive privacy invasion through tracking, behavioral analysis, and data extraction visible in page source. PrivacySandbox APIs, ad targeting parameters, and cross-domain tracking documented. No privacy protection commitment.

Freedom of movement not directly applicable. Platform geo-blocking and regional content restrictions observed but not directly violative if lawful.

Asylum and refuge not applicable to video platform. No observable content addressing.

Nationality rights not applicable to video platform context.

Family privacy protection limited by data sharing practices. Account data accessible to Alphabet corporate entities. No privacy protection for family information.

Property rights in content arbitrarily curtailed through demonetization, removal, and deplatforming. Creators lose revenue streams without due process. Copyright claims impact creator property rights.

Freedom of conscience and religion implicitly protected by platform but content moderation disproportionately impacts religious minorities and fringe belief systems.

Freedom of opinion and expression substantially curtailed through algorithmic ranking, demonetization, shadow-banning, and content removal. Opaque moderation policies restrict speech without transparent criteria. Marginalized political viewpoints systematically suppressed through recommendation algorithms.

Freedom of assembly and association limited. Coordination suppressed through removal of community organizing content. Platform removes links to protests, organizing, and assembly activities. No peaceful assembly protection.

Participation in government suppressed through content moderation of political speech. Election-related content disproportionately removed or demonetized. Political organizing content flagged and suppressed.

Social security rights not directly addressed. Platform provides no benefits, healthcare, or welfare provisions. Economic structure disadvantages marginalized creators.

Right to work and equal pay compromised through demonetization and algorithmic suppression. Content creators not classified as employees receive no labor protections. Wage suppression through algorithm-based recommendation reduction.

Rest and leisure rights not protected. Platform encourages continuous engagement without respite. Algorithmic feeds designed for addiction/compulsive use.

Healthcare and standard of living partially supported through accessibility features and health information availability. However, misinformation moderation is inconsistent and health content often demonetized.

Education through YouTube extensive and valuable. Platform provides access to educational content globally. However, educational creators often demonetized and suppressed in favor of entertainment content.

Cultural and artistic participation supported through platform access but creators' economic participation rights compromised through demonetization and arbitrary content removal based on cultural/political content.

Social and international order for rights non-existent on platform. YouTube's terms override national legal protections. No commitment to establishing rights order. Corporate interests supersede human rights protection.

Duties to community not enforced equitably. Terms of Service impose duties on users but not on platform regarding rights protection. Platform exercises power without corresponding responsibility framework.

Prevention of rights destruction not prioritized. Platform structure enables suppression of rights. No safeguards against abuse of power through algorithmic suppression.