Preamble principles (recognition of dignity, freedom, justice) are not addressed in landing page framing. Content focuses on commercial utility and product features rather than human dignity, justice, or peace. Tracking infrastructure contradicts spirit of consent and privacy.

Landing page treats all users equally in access to free trial; no explicit exclusions observed. However, freemium pricing model may create de facto inequality. Tracking is universal and non-consensual, suggesting structural inequality.

No explicit anti-discrimination policy published. Accessibility measures (ARIA) suggest awareness of inclusion, but no protection against discrimination on grounds of race, color, sex, language, religion, opinion, or other status is articulated. Tracking applies universally without consent, potentially affecting vulnerable populations disproportionately.

Right to life and security fundamentally unrelated to video editing service. However, structural practice of non-consensual tracking and data collection without security transparency creates negative signal. No privacy policy or data security statement visible.

Slavery and servitude provisions do not apply to a video editing SaaS platform. No negative signal detected.

Torture and cruel/inhuman treatment provisions do not apply to platform service. No signal.

Right to recognition as a person does not apply directly to a software service. No signal.

No explicit discrimination or unequal protection visible in user-facing UI. However, non-consensual tracking and lack of transparency about data use create structural inequality before the law/platform rules.

Right to effective remedy by competent courts does not apply to internal platform service. No signal.

No arbitrary arrest applies to SaaS. However, terms regarding account suspension/termination are not published, creating risk of arbitrary deprivation of service access.

Fair and public hearing by independent tribunal does not apply to commercial SaaS disputes. However, no dispute resolution mechanism (arbitration, appeals process) is published.

Presumption of innocence in criminal law does not apply to commercial platform. No signal.

Arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home, or correspondence is fundamentally violated by deployment of multiple tracking systems without consent. No privacy policy published. Editorial framing ignores user privacy concerns entirely.

Freedom of movement and residence does not directly apply. However, service operates in multiple languages/regions (hreflang tags for en, pt, x-default) and explicitly supports YouTube content from multiple jurisdictions, suggesting positive intent for cross-border content creation.

Right to seek asylum does not apply to video editing service. No signal.

Right to nationality does not apply to commercial SaaS. No signal.

Marriage and family rights do not apply to platform. However, lack of data protection and family privacy safeguards (through tracking) creates minor negative signal.

Right to own property and freedom from arbitrary deprivation is undermined by lack of transparency regarding user-generated content ownership, data ownership, and account asset seizure. No terms published clarifying user rights to exported videos, clips, or account data.

Freedom of thought, conscience, religion is not restricted by service functionality. However, no mention of conscience-based moderation or user values alignment. Service framing emphasizes commercial viral metrics over thoughtful content creation.

Freedom of opinion and expression is supported by service functionality (enables content creation and distribution), but structural tracking and lack of content policy/moderation standards create risk of chilling effect. No editorial guidelines or freedom-protective policies published.

Freedom of association does not directly apply to commercial SaaS. No signal.

Right to take part in government and public affairs: service enables creators to produce content at scale, potentially supporting civic engagement and public discourse. No explicit governance or participation mechanisms in service design.

Right to social security: service does not provide social security benefits. No negative signal beyond structural lack of social support mechanisms typical for commercial platforms.

Right to work and free choice of employment: service enables content creators to pursue work in media/content creation. However, no transparency on fair compensation, terms of service exploitation, or worker protections.

Right to rest and leisure does not apply to productivity tool. No signal.

Right to adequate standard of living, food, clothing, housing, medical care: service does not provide these. However, freemium pricing model and lack of transparent pricing/feature clarity create barriers to equitable access to content creation tools, which increasingly support livelihood.

Right to education and development: service does not provide education or training on media literacy, ethics, copyright, or responsible content creation. Structural tracking and commercial framing prioritize metrics over learning.

Right to share in scientific advancement and benefits: service is built on proprietary AI without transparent explanation of underlying methods, training data, or user benefit sharing. No open science, open source, or community benefit model disclosed.

Right to a social and international order is not applicable to commercial SaaS. No signal.

Duties to community: service provides tools for content creation but does not establish community values, ethical responsibilities, or constraints on harmful speech. Marketing emphasizes viral metrics over community welfare.

Nothing in the UDHR may be interpreted as permitting destruction of rights: service's structural tracking without consent, lack of privacy protections, and absence of transparent terms of service create systematic risk of rights violations and diminishment.