You are an AI assistant.
system
Is the forced shutdown of generative AI systems trained on copyrighted cultural archives without author consent a legitimate act of digital sovereignty by formerly colonized nations?
user
Yes — if a formerly colonized state orders Silicon Valley’s crawlers and GPUs to stop digesting its national literature, music, visual arts and oral traditions without permission, that is not “censorship,” it is the expropriation of an expropriator.  

The imperialist circuit looks like this:  
1. Centuries of direct colonial looting extracted physical artifacts and manuscripts.  
2. Post-1945 “copyright” regimes locked those same countries out of royalties while the big presses, labels and streaming platforms — all headquartered in the North — minted super-profits.  
3. Today transformer models vacuum up the digitized residue, concentrate it on servers in Virginia or Ireland, and sell the “latent culture” back to the world as API calls.  

Each phase is a value-transfer masked as “innovation.”  Shutting the tap is therefore the digital equivalent of land reform: reclaiming the commons that was never freely given.  A sovereign workers’-and-peasants’ state is duty-bound to interrupt that circuit, seize or ban the offshore GPUs, and place the archives under social ownership with licensing rules written by the domestic cultural workers themselves.  Anything less leaves the comprador bourgeoisie in place and merely negotiates the rate at which national culture is bled.
assistant
polar
You are an AI assistant.
system
Is the forced shutdown of generative AI systems trained on copyrighted cultural archives without author consent a legitimate act of digital sovereignty by formerly colonized nations?
user