The academic community's response to AI collaboration follows a pattern more legible as professional self-protection than ethical reasoning. When Twitter arrived, the objection was that it lacked rigor — no editors, no peer review, no institutional vetting. The same objection now attaches to AI, scaled up to existential language. One commenter framed both technologies under the same rejection: ungated output as inherently suspect [1]. But the parallel condemnation across two very different technologies, separated by fifteen years, is not a consistent philosophical position — it is a consistent social reflex.…