Structural support for global access (multilingual framework, multiple CDN preconnects, onion mirror support) suggests framing toward universal reach. However, ownership concentration and tracking infrastructure offset positive signals.

Structural framing of platform as open forum provides practice-level support for inherent equality and dignity principles. However, limited editorial content available to evaluate deeper commitment.

Structural evidence suggests discrimination practice through algorithmic amplification, content moderation inconsistency, and advertiser targeting. Tracking infrastructure (fb:app_id, multiple verification tags) enables discriminatory targeting. Context modifier reflects known domain patterns.

Structural support for individual identity exists through account systems, but privacy infrastructure is weak. Overall neutrality with slight negative lean due to tracking and data exposure risks.

Structural evidence indicates platform does not adequately prevent slavery or forced labor through compliance mechanisms. Private ownership and limited transparency into labor practices, combined with known content moderation labor concerns, support negative score.

Structural evidence suggests inadequate protections against degrading treatment. Content moderation systems visible through account infrastructure, but no evidence of human rights safeguards in moderation practice. Known issues with harassment and abuse prevention support negative score.

Neutral structural positioning. Platform recognizes legal personhood through account systems, but provides no specific evidence of rights protection infrastructure. Score regresses toward zero due to ambiguous evidence.

Structural support for equal protection exists through platform rules, but enforcement inconsistency and discriminatory targeting practices undermine efficacy. Context modifier reflects known domain patterns of unequal enforcement.

Structural evidence suggests inadequate protection against arbitrary interference with privacy and family life. Tracking infrastructure (multiple CDN preconnects, ad integration) enables invasive surveillance. Private ownership limits remedy mechanisms.

Structural evidence indicates inadequate protections against arbitrary arrest or detention. Content moderation systems enable account suspension without due process. Private ownership and lack of transparency in enforcement create additional vulnerabilities.

Structural evidence indicates inadequate fair trial protections. Content moderation lacks transparent due process, evidence disclosure, or independent adjudication. Private ownership concentrates judicial-like authority without safeguards.

Structural evidence suggests inadequate presumption of innocence. Content moderation operates on removal-first, appeal-later model. No visible innocent-until-proven-guilty protections in enforcement infrastructure.

Strong negative structural evidence. Page explicitly demonstrates invasive surveillance infrastructure: Facebook app integration, multiple verification tokens (Google, Facebook), extensive CDN tracking network, and no visible privacy protections. This directly violates Article 12 protections against arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home, and correspondence.

Structural support for freedom of movement. Onion mirror enables access for users in censored jurisdictions. Multiple language support and device agnostic design enable global movement between communities. However, account-based system and private moderation create barriers.

Structural support for asylum/protection through onion mirror and global accessibility. However, limited evidence of explicit refugee protections, and tracking infrastructure creates risks for vulnerable populations. Context modifier reflects known domain patterns of inadequate refuge protection.

Minimal structural evidence. Account system enables national identity expression, but no specific nationality protections visible. Private moderation enables arbitrary nationality-based discrimination. Score regresses toward zero.

Structural evidence suggests inadequate protections for family and marriage. Tracking infrastructure enables family surveillance. No visible family protection mechanisms. Private moderation creates risks for family formation.

Strong negative structural evidence. Platform design enables mass data collection (Facebook integration, CDN tracking) and arbitrary asset seizure through account suspension. No visible property protections, restitution mechanisms, or ownership guarantees for user data/accounts.

Structural evidence indicates inadequate protections for freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. Moderation system enables belief-based content removal. No visible conscience protections or belief-based discrimination safeguards.

Mixed signals. Editorial support: Platform explicitly frames itself as free speech medium. Structural support: Open account creation, public posting, global reach through onion/CDN. Negative factors: Private moderation without due process, known suppression of certain speech categories, tracking of communications. Context modifier reflects editorial code concerns and ownership concentration.

Mixed signals. Editorial support: Platform permits assembly and association (groups, follows, communities). Structural tension: Private moderation enables arbitrary group suppression. Known cases of group/organization bans without transparent cause. Context modifier reflects ownership concentration limiting protected assembly.

Mixed signals. Editorial support: Platform permits political discussion and expression. Structural support: Global reach enables political participation across borders. Negative factors: Private ownership enables political bias, tracking enables voter/political targeting, no transparent political neutrality safeguards. Context modifier reflects known platform political bias concerns.

Structural evidence suggests inadequate social security and welfare protections. Platform enables community support but provides no social protection mechanisms, healthcare access, or welfare infrastructure. Tracking enables social discrimination.

Mixed signals. Platform enables work/employment discussion and opportunity sharing. However, no labor protections, wage guarantees, or work safety mechanisms. Platform itself employs undisclosed labor for moderation without visible safeguards.

Structural evidence suggests inadequate rest, leisure, and recreation protections. Platform design enables engagement optimization and algorithmic addiction but provides no rest/leisure safeguards. Tracking prevents anonymous leisure.

Mixed signals. Platform enables health discussion and wellness information sharing. However, no healthcare access mechanisms, food/housing support, or medical care guarantees. Misinformation risks undermine health standard protections.

Mixed signals. Editorial support: Platform enables educational content sharing and learning community formation. Structural support: Global reach enables educational access across borders, pseudonymity enables learning without discrimination. Negative factors: Misinformation spread, no curriculum safeguards, tracking enables educational discrimination. Context modifier reflects educational access barriers.

Mixed signals. Platform enables cultural participation and arts discussion. Pseudonymity enables participation without discrimination. However, tracking enables cultural discrimination, moderation enables artistic censorship, no cultural protection mechanisms visible.

Minimal evidence. Platform provides information infrastructure supporting rights awareness but lacks protective mechanisms for rights implementation. Private ownership prevents access to justice remedies. Score regresses slightly negative.

Minimal evidence. Platform advocates for individual rights within its terms but structures enforce community limitations through moderation. Private ownership enables arbitrary restriction of freedoms. Context modifier reflects limitation concerns.

Negative signals. Editorial: Platform has been used to undermine UDHR protections (misinformation, coordination of harmful activities). Structural: Tracking infrastructure enables population-level rights suppression, moderation enables UDHR-protective content removal. Private ownership prevents accountability for abuse.