A change in footing doesn't say what we're taking issue with—or even really that we are taking issue with anything, we might also just have an antsy moment—but they tell our interlocutors that there's something that makes us want to switch the frame. An intention is signaled, at the very least. 2/

So, if a hundred real-life bsky users respond with "ai;dr" to your 1,700-word "hey, by the way, this was written by AI" blog post, they are disagreeing. Their four-letter response doesn't rise to your desire for substantive counterargument, sure. But they wanted to change footing, and they did. 3/

And now you can't change it back to somewhere you now say you wanted it to be. Or. . . When you had it, you didn't want it Now you ain't got it, so you want it back 4/

I mean, speaking for myself, there was still ample room to try to engage me or respond to my counterargument. To re-enter the conversation through a newly offered frame. But that is not what this compatriot wanted to do. 5/ bsky.app/profile/katj...

RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:pis2dwki2yf5ieehrzwh3rke/post/3mgd3347gbk2b

Which is fine. My responses are usually a bit terse and in this case I did not try to be particularly gentle—we had all been invited to "Make of it what you will," after all. I'd only like to add that when we're talking to humans, they will change footing as much as they feel emboldened to do. 6/

And it is a bit of a bad look to measure that kind of conversational freedom of others against the sycophancy of genAI chatbots. And an even more bleak outlook to say you prefer sycophantic slop over other humans' four-letter changes in footing (that are not even rude). But again, OK, noted. 7/