Gatekeeping in Online Communities
--
Update (2021–03–05): I wrote a better article about this topic that captures the nuance better on my new blog. The article is titled No Gates, No Keepers.
So, let me tell you a little bit about myself before I get to the point.
I’m the owner of a group called Furry Technologists on Telegram, which has over 300 self-selected furries who are interested in science and technology.
I’m a moderator for Furry.Watch, which is to say, I’m one of several people who can approve or deny a Twitch streamer’s application to be listed on the Furry.Watch homepage.
I’m also a Twitch moderator for many of the more popular furry Twitch streamers.
With that in mind, let me state, in no uncertain terms: I hate gatekeeping.
Aren’t You a Gatekeeper by Circumstance?
Anyone who falls into any sort of leadership position of any group, small or large, will inevitably do one of two things:
- Have a power trip, embrace their inner gatekeeper, and forge the group in the fires of their own out-of-control ego.
- Grow to detest gatekeeping.
But whether or not being responsible for a group makes you a gatekeeper depends on exactly what you mean by “gatekeeping”.
What Exactly is Gatekeeping?
Lexico (Oxford’s online dictionary) defines gatekeeping as, “the activity of controlling, and usually limiting, general access to something.”
Some examples of gatekeeping you might have seen over the years:
- “Poodling” is bad.
- “You’re not a real furry unless…”
- “Real programmers use [text editor / language / framework].”
However, this definition also encapsulates some behavior that is almost universally agreed upon.
So, is Oxford’s definition a good one? Or do we need one that carries more nuance?
I’d like to share my own theory. This is the point where I think many people will disagree with me, and that’s okay.
If you do disagree with me, I’d like to hear your thoughts on this subject. Write your own response anywhere and send it to me on Telegram, Discord, or email.
Soatok’s Theory of Social Gatekeeping
I believe that the Oxford definition is correct, but gatekeeping isn’t a clear cut binary topic. To put it more formally:
A small amount of gatekeeping is necessary for a social group to maintain its identity. Any gatekeeping beyond the minimum amount necessary to serve this vital function is harmful.
Any group with excessive gatekeeping will become toxic.
Any group with insufficient gatekeeping will end up at the mercy of toxic individuals.
In my opinion, the sweet spot is: You need to be able to directly and consistently tell all of the alt-right idiots, sexual abusers, and malicious trolls to fuck off, while still being welcoming to people who approach your group in good faith.
(Yes, I’m aware that the three groups I listed have significant overlap, don’t @ me.)
The necessary gatekeeping should exist at the actual boundaries of a group, and should serve everyone in the group’s best interests.
Making people feel bad because they like writing software in Node.js instead of C# doesn’t make them not a real programmer, it just makes you an asshole.
Dumb memes like “straight furries don’t exist” are shitty and wrong, and I expect better of a fandom that’s been refuge to so many LGBTQIA+ folks who would be immensely bullied by society at large.
My point is: If you’re making people within the group feel like they don’t belong, you’re doing it wrong. (And you will rarely, if ever, be informed. People will just… leave.) Tone it down a lot and you’ll get better results.
Group Survival Depends on This
No matter how large your group is, since all of its members are mortal, it will eventually perish if there are no new members.
The topology of your group doesn’t matter here. Even emergent groups from decentralized, chaotic social systems (e.g. the hacktivist “group”, Anonymous) are not immune to this effect.
TL;DR
Perfection in gatekeeping is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
Gatekeeping is evil, albeit sometimes necessary.
