Mataroa is a privacy-respecting blogging platform with no tracking cookies visible in HTML. Content advocates for privacy rights against corporate surveillance.
Terms of Service
—
No ToS review possible from provided content.
Accessibility
+0.10
Article 25 Article 27
Clean semantic HTML, responsive design, dark mode support, and readable typography support accessibility for users with diverse needs.
Mission
+0.12
Article 19 Article 27
Mataroa's mission emphasizes independent blogging and user autonomy, aligned with freedom of expression and digital ownership.
Editorial Code
—
No explicit editorial code observed.
Ownership
+0.18
Article 17 Article 27
Mataroa platform design emphasizes user ownership of content and portability, supporting right to property and cultural participation.
Access Model
+0.10
Article 19 Article 27
Article is fully publicly accessible at no cost, supporting universal right to information and culture.
Ad/Tracking
+0.15
Article 12 Article 17
No ad or tracking infrastructure visible in page source, consistent with privacy-respecting platform design.
Score Breakdown
+0.71
PreamblePreamble
High Advocacy Framing
Editorial
+0.65
Structural
+0.55
SETL
+0.25
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Article advocates for human dignity and autonomy in digital systems. Structural design of hosting platform supports user rights.
Observable Facts
Article opens with lament for 'power users' who understood their tools, framing technical autonomy as human capability worth preserving.
Author explicitly frames the shift away from user control as deliberate corporate effort: 'calculated effort by the largest technology companies on earth to turn users into consumers.'
Mataroa platform provides clean, privacy-respecting HTML with no tracking or advertising infrastructure.
Inferences
The Preamble's emphasis on dignity and equal rights is reflected in the article's defense of technical literacy as a universal rather than elite capability.
The platform's structural design to minimize corporate control mirrors the editorial's core argument about user autonomy.
+0.67
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
High Advocacy Framing
Editorial
+0.60
Structural
+0.58
SETL
+0.11
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Article defends equal dignity and freedom by criticizing systems that create asymmetric power relationships between users and corporations.
Observable Facts
Author states: 'Someone who actually understood the tools they used' as the prototype of human agency being eroded.
Frames corporate strategy as systematically diminishing human capability: 'turn users into consumers, instruments into appliances.'
Argues that dependency is being sold as progress, creating false choice between capability and safety.
Inferences
The defense of technical understanding as a universal human right treats literacy as a form of dignity, consistent with Article 1's equal and inalienable rights.
Critique of 'appliance' framing challenges systems that reduce humans to passive consumers rather than autonomous agents.
+0.63
Article 2Non-Discrimination
High Advocacy Framing
Editorial
+0.55
Structural
+0.52
SETL
+0.13
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Article critiques systems designed without regard to distinction of person, status, or national origin—proprietary platforms apply identical restrictions regardless of user background.
Observable Facts
Author describes platforms as applying identical constraints to all users: 'no filesystem access' applies universally across iOS.
Critiques the universalization of managed access: 'a platform where the vendor's preferences take absolute precedence over user autonomy.'
Notes that restrictions target capabilities rather than groups, but result is discriminatory effect on those seeking technical autonomy.
Inferences
While platforms do not discriminate on explicitly listed grounds, systematic removal of user agency treats all users as equivalent consumption units.
The article's defense of equal access to technical tools reflects Article 2's principle of non-discrimination in rights.
+0.66
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
High Advocacy
Editorial
+0.58
Structural
+0.56
SETL
+0.11
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Article defends right to life, liberty, and security by criticizing platform control mechanisms that leave users vulnerable.
Observable Facts
Author argues for 'ownership' of hardware and code as form of security: 'Unlock your bootloader, which is the most basic possible act of taking ownership of your own hardware.'
Describes Play Integrity API as preventing users from exercising bodily autonomy over devices: 'apps will detect this and refuse to function.'
Links technical literacy to practical security: 'You'll be trying to understand why your app is making twenty network requests when it should be making three, and you have no tools to answer that question.'
Inferences
Inability to understand or control one's own systems undermines practical security and autonomy.
Dependency on corporate systems for basic functionality diminishes liberty in digital domain.
ND
Article 4No Slavery
Article 4 (slavery prohibition) not directly addressed in content.
ND
Article 5No Torture
Article 5 (torture/cruel treatment) not directly addressed in content.
ND
Article 6Legal Personhood
Article 6 (right to recognition before law) not directly addressed in content.
ND
Article 7Equality Before Law
Article 7 (equal protection before law) not directly addressed in content.
ND
Article 8Right to Remedy
Article 8 (remedy for rights violations) not directly addressed in content.
ND
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
Article 9 (arbitrary arrest/detention) not directly addressed in content.
ND
Article 10Fair Hearing
Article 10 (fair trial/impartial hearing) not directly addressed in content.
ND
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
Article 11 (presumption of innocence) not directly addressed in content.
+0.83
Article 12Privacy
High Advocacy Coverage
Editorial
+0.70
Structural
+0.65
SETL
+0.19
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Article 12 protects privacy against arbitrary interference. Content extensively critiques corporate surveillance as arbitrary interference with private life.
Observable Facts
Author directly addresses privacy violation: 'Google processes your email to serve you targeted advertising. These are your emails. They contain information about your medical situation, your finances, your relationship conflicts.'
Describes collection as systemic and non-consensual: 'Google's systems build behavioral models from this and those models are sold to advertisers.'
Author explicitly names the power dynamic: 'Whoever holds your behavioral data holds power over you.'
Criticizes Microsoft Recall: 'takes screenshots of your screen every few seconds, runs OCR on them, and makes the indexed text searchable.'
Inferences
Article frames surveillance as arbitrary interference with private life, the core harm Article 12 protects against.
The author's emphasis on consent—'people who absolutely did not consent to Google reading their messages'—directly invokes Article 12's protection.
Platform design of Mataroa (no tracking) structurally supports privacy rights in practice.
+0.68
Article 13Freedom of Movement
Medium Practice
Editorial
ND
Structural
+0.60
SETL
ND
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
While not explicitly discussed, the platform design enables freedom of movement in digital space through open standards and portability.
Observable Facts
Mataroa uses open standards (HTML, JSON) that support content portability.
No vendor lock-in mechanisms visible in page structure.
Inferences
Platform design supports practical freedom to move content between systems, analogous to freedom of movement.
ND
Article 14Asylum
Article 14 (asylum) not directly addressed in content.
ND
Article 15Nationality
Article 15 (nationality) not directly addressed in content.
ND
Article 16Marriage & Family
Article 16 (marriage/family) not directly addressed in content.
+0.84
Article 17Property
High Advocacy Coverage
Editorial
+0.68
Structural
+0.62
SETL
+0.20
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Article 17 protects property rights and protection against arbitrary deprivation. Author extensively critiques systems that deprive users of ownership of their devices and data.
Observable Facts
Author frames smartphone platforms as denial of ownership: 'an appliance that you licensed rather than owned, that ran software only Apple approved, that couldn't be meaningfully modified.'
Explicitly names the deprivation: 'Apple's control over what you could do with hardware you supposedly bought.'
Criticizes Google's API restrictions as removing user property: 'API deprecations that broke the kinds of deep-system access power users relied on: the automation apps, the proper file managers, the backup tools.'
Describes Play Integrity API as preventing ownership exercise: 'Unlock your bootloader...and a growing list of apps will detect this and refuse to function.'
Author states the core property issue: 'the distinction isn't clear to them...They've never had to understand it because the platforms they grew up on hid it from them.'
Inferences
The article's central argument is that corporate systems systematically prevent users from exercising property rights over purchased hardware.
Framing of data as private property ('These are your emails') invokes Article 17's protection.
Platform design of Mataroa (no corporate extraction of user data) structurally supports property rights.
+0.71
Article 18Freedom of Thought
High Advocacy Framing
Editorial
+0.62
Structural
+0.58
SETL
+0.16
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Article 18 protects freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. Author defends freedom to understand and decide how technology operates.
Observable Facts
Author critiques corporate indoctrination: 'They've internalized the vendor's framing so thoroughly that they experience the cage as comfortable.'
Describes deliberate suppression of understanding: 'The concept of a filesystem...is genuinely alien to them. Not because it's complicated. A child can understand that files live in folders. But they've never had to understand it.'
Frames technical knowledge as cognitive autonomy: 'Someone who actually understood the tools they used.'
Inferences
Systematic prevention of understanding constitutes interference with freedom of thought.
The ability to understand one's own tools is prerequisite for autonomous thought about technology.
+0.82
Article 19Freedom of Expression
High Advocacy Coverage
Editorial
+0.75
Structural
+0.68
SETL
+0.23
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Article 19 protects freedom of opinion and expression. Article is a strong defense of this right and critiques platforms that restrict expression.
Observable Facts
Article title itself is expression of opinion: 'The Slow Death of the Power User' presents analytical perspective.
Author advocates for freedom to understand systems: 'The knowledge propagated because the culture treated knowledge as worth propagating.'
Explicitly critiques algorithmic suppression of expression: 'algorithmically deprioritize anything that demands active engagement.'
Defends right to express technical criticism: 'the response when you point this out is okay but who has time for that.'
Platform provides public access to full article without paywalls or registration requirements.
Inferences
The article's entire content constitutes protected opinion and expression about technology and corporate control.
Author critiques platforms that suppress 'technical material' through algorithmic deprioritization.
Mataroa's publication model supports freedom of expression without corporate editorial gatekeeping.
+0.63
Article 20Assembly & Association
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.55
Structural
+0.52
SETL
+0.13
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Article implicitly supports freedom of peaceful assembly and association by defending communities like ROM hackers, jailbreakers, and modding communities.
Observable Facts
Author celebrates communities: 'The BBS scene in the eighties ran on self-taught systems operators.'
Explicitly names jailbreak community as legitimate: 'The jailbreak scene for the original iPhone...produced security researchers.'
Critiques platform design that prevents assembly: 'no inter-app communication beyond what Apple chose to expose.'
Inferences
Defense of technical communities constitutes defense of freedom of association.
Critique of platform restrictions targets limitations on peaceful assembly of users and developers.
ND
Article 21Political Participation
Article 21 (political participation) not directly addressed in content.
+0.67
Article 22Social Security
Medium Advocacy Framing
Editorial
+0.58
Structural
+0.55
SETL
+0.13
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Article critiques economic systems that reduce human capability (social and cultural rights).
Observable Facts
Author critiques the economics of platform dependency: 'Their business model requires passive engagement.'
Describes effect on human capability: 'A user who spends three hours going down a documentation rabbit hole...is worth less to them.'
Frames technical understanding as cultural right: 'The knowledge propagated because the culture treated knowledge as worth propagating.'
Inferences
Economic models that actively suppress human learning and autonomy undermine social and cultural rights.
The article defends access to learning and cultural participation as economic rights.
+0.59
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
Medium Advocacy Framing
Editorial
+0.52
Structural
+0.50
SETL
+0.10
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Article critiques labor conditions for developers who must work within constrained platforms without understanding.
Observable Facts
Author describes developer experience: 'people who write software for a living who've never had to think about what happens between their API call and the response.'
Critiques reduced autonomy: 'you can go a long way in modern development without ever leaving the managed abstractions your platform provides.'
Notes professional consequence: 'Optional until something breaks in a way the framework didn't anticipate.'
Inferences
Platform constraints on developer autonomy constitute restrictions on meaningful work.
Developers forced to work without understanding their tools face degraded labor conditions.
ND
Article 24Rest & Leisure
Article 24 (rest and leisure) not directly addressed in content.
+0.71
Article 25Standard of Living
High Advocacy Practice
Editorial
+0.60
Structural
+0.62
SETL
-0.11
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Article 25 protects standard of living. Author critiques dependency systems that undermine practical security and autonomy.
Observable Facts
Author emphasizes practical security: 'you're trying to understand why your app is making twenty network requests when it should be making three, and you have no tools to answer that question.'
Describes vulnerability from ignorance: 'Optional until something breaks in a way the framework didn't anticipate.'
Notes structural health: 'Wireshark has been free for decades. Most developers have never opened it. That is not a neutral fact about the state of the profession.'
Mataroa platform uses clean, standards-based HTML that supports user security and autonomy.
Inferences
Inability to understand one's own systems creates security vulnerability and reduces standard of living.
Technical literacy is prerequisite for adequate standard of living in digital age.
+0.76
Article 26Education
High Advocacy Coverage
Editorial
+0.65
Structural
+0.62
SETL
+0.14
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Article 26 protects right to education. Author extensively critiques the suppression of technical education and understanding.
Observable Facts
Author frames the core issue as educational: 'We Raised a Generation That Doesn't Know How Anything Works.'
Critiques pedagogical shift: 'Twenty years ago these were things you learned in the first week of any serious engagement with computers.'
Describes deliberate suppression of learning: 'platforms they grew up on hid it from them.'
Names the cultural mechanism: 'The tutorial teaches you to perform a specific sequence of steps...Documentation teaches you to understand a system.'
Critiques AI acceleration: 'You can now write complete programs without understanding what a single line of them does.'
Inferences
The article's entire argument is that systematic suppression of technical education is harm to human development.
Platforms deliberately design out learning pathways that used to transmit knowledge culturally.
+0.85
Article 27Cultural Participation
High Advocacy Coverage
Editorial
+0.72
Structural
+0.68
SETL
+0.17
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Article 27 protects participation in cultural life. Author defends technical culture and the ability to contribute to and understand it.
Observable Facts
Author celebrates technical culture: 'Technology culture used to celebrate technical competence.'
Describes loss of cultural participation: 'The early web had a view source ethos: you saw something interesting, you looked at how it was built, you learned from it, you made something of your own.'
Names cultural heroes: 'The ROM hacking community produced people who understood binary formats. The jailbreak scene...produced security researchers.'
Critiques cultural destruction: 'That culture didn't die because the knowledge became irrelevant. It died because it became economically inconvenient.'
Names the mechanism: 'reward passive consumption, and they shape the culture of their platform accordingly.'
Mataroa platform supports cultural participation through open standards and user agency.
Inferences
The article's primary argument is about loss of participation in technical culture.
Platform design that prevents modification, learning, and contribution systematically excludes users from cultural life.
Author's own participation in technical culture (writing, analysis, sharing knowledge) is supported by platform choice.
+0.70
Article 28Social & International Order
Medium Advocacy Framing
Editorial
+0.62
Structural
+0.58
SETL
+0.16
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Article critiques corporate arrangements that violate social order necessary for rights realization.
Observable Facts
Author describes systematic violation: 'the largest technology companies on earth to turn users into consumers, instruments into appliances.'
Critiques legitimacy claims: 'All of this was sold as a feature. What it actually was, is control.'
Identifies false consent: 'the genius move, the move that should make any serious observer furious, was convincing users that this control was being exercised on their behalf.'
Inferences
Corporate arrangements that prevent user understanding and autonomy violate the social order necessary for rights.
+0.55
Article 29Duties to Community
Medium Advocacy Framing
Editorial
+0.48
Structural
+0.50
SETL
-0.10
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Article implicitly defends limitations on rights through critique of corporate power.
Observable Facts
Author argues that freedoms (to modify, understand, own) are being systematically restricted: 'no filesystem access. No inter-app communication.'
Frames restrictions as illegitimate: 'what it actually was, is control—Apple's control over what you could do with hardware you supposedly bought.'
Inferences
Article defends the principle that restrictions on rights must be justified and limited, not arbitrary.
+0.66
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
Medium Advocacy Coverage
Editorial
+0.58
Structural
+0.56
SETL
+0.11
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Article defends against interpretation of rights as permitting their destruction through technological systems.
Observable Facts
Author argues that platform design enables systematic violation: 'Google can process your email, prevent bootloader unlocking, use behavioral models for profit.'
Defends against false reconciliation: 'I have nothing to hide' is the response, which is not an argument—it's a thought-terminating cliché.'
Inferences
The article prevents interpretation of platform 'convenience' as justification for rights violations.