Content advocates for human dignity and freedom from exploitation in context of AI labor practices. Frames AI as threat to global justice and worker welfare. Preamble values (freedom, justice, human worth) are central to article's argument.

Article asserts equal human dignity through focus on exploitation of Global South workers and precarious labor. Content rejects hierarchies in AI labor value extraction.

No explicit reference to freedom from slavery or servitude, but emphasis on labor exploitation and unfair conditions maps indirectly to freedom from forced labor.

Content centers on right to life and security through discussion of AI enabling genocide, surveillance, and disinformation. Framing positions AI as threat to fundamental security.

No observable content relating to slavery or servitude as distinct legal category beyond Article 2 labor exploitation framing.

Content references trauma imposed on Global South workers and cognitive harms from AI use. No explicit torture framing, but harm language aligns with freedom from cruel treatment.

Content centers on personhood and dignity through critique of AI exploitation, surveillance, and dehumanizing labor practices. Framing positions workers and affected populations as rights-bearing persons whose dignity is violated.

Content identifies AI-enabled discrimination and reinforcement of racism, fascism, and transphobia. Aligns with equal protection concern, though not explicitly framed as equality before law.

No observable content relating to legal remedy or judiciary function.

Content identifies AI-enabled surveillance and harassment as threats to freedom from arbitrary detention/intrusion. Surveillance supercharging framing aligns directly with Article 9 protection of privacy/autonomy.

No observable content relating to fair and public hearing or judicial fairness.

No observable content relating to retroactive criminal liability or presumption of innocence.

Content explicitly addresses privacy and consent violations through AI-enabled surveillance, deepfake harassment, and data exploitation. Structural privacy-respecting design (cookieless analytics, no tracking ads, transparent data use) reinforces editorial position.

No observable content relating to freedom of movement or residence. Content does not address geographic mobility or place-based rights.

No observable content relating to asylum or refuge. Content does not address political persecution or right to seek asylum.

No observable content relating to nationality or statelessness. Content does not address citizenship or national belonging.

No observable content relating to marriage, family, or consent to union. Content does not address family rights or marriage autonomy.

Content identifies theft of copyrighted material for AI training as distinct harm. Framing maps to property rights protection, though focused on creators' intellectual property rather than personal possessions.

No observable content relating to freedom of thought, conscience, or religion. Content does not address religious or philosophical freedom.

Content explicitly exercises freedom of expression through critical opinion on AI, with sourced evidence and transparent reasoning. Structural design (RSS feed, open access, creative commons licensing, no paywalls) maximizes information availability and reuse. Author exercises right to form and express opinion; site structure enables others to share and discuss.

Content addresses freedom of peaceful assembly and association indirectly through critique of surveillance and disinformation that threaten organized resistance. Author's engagement with grassroots tech criticism community and linked 'see also' section suggest association with critical movements.

No observable content relating to participation in government, voting, or public service. Content does not address political participation or representation.

Content identifies AI as threat to social and economic rights through mass layoffs, worker exploitation, surveillance, and environmental degradation. Framing positions AI as barrier to dignified living standards and economic security.

Content centers on labor rights violations through AI: worker exploitation, poor conditions, low pay, lack of agency. Framing explicitly addresses dignity in work, fair compensation, and freedom from arbitrary dismissal through layoffs.

Content addresses rest and leisure indirectly through critique of AI workload intensification and mass surveillance of workers. Worker exploitation framing implicitly concerns protection of non-work time.

Content identifies multiple threats to adequate standard of living and health through AI: environmental destruction (energy/water consumption), cognitive harms to healthcare, worker displacement reducing economic security. Structural accessibility (semantic HTML, mobile support, RSS) enables equitable access to health information.

Content explicitly identifies 'impact on education systems' as harm from AI. Author's career as educator/speaker and engagement with learning community signal commitment to Article 26 values. Open access and RSS syndication support free education distribution.

Content centers on protection of cultural and scientific commons through critique of copyright theft, worker displacement of creators, and threats to knowledge systems. Author's own creative work (blog, talks, projects) signal participation in creative community.

Content identifies structural failures of justice and governance in AI deployment. Framing positions multiple harms (genocide, surveillance, labor exploitation) as resulting from absence of rights-protecting social order.

Content implies Article 29 duties through identification of AI harms, suggesting individual and collective responsibility to constrain AI development. Author's engagement and writing signal belief in personal duty to community.

No observable content relating to prevention of interpretation of rights to enable their destruction. Content does not address the integrity of UDHR framework itself.