By Michael Kelman Portney

Online communities have the potential to be powerful spaces for connection, learning, and sharing. At their best, they allow people to find others who share their interests, values, or experiences, creating a sense of belonging that can be hard to find elsewhere. But there’s a dark side to these spaces—one that surfaces through a phenomenon we’re all familiar with: gatekeeping. Gatekeeping occurs when certain members of a community, often those who consider themselves veterans or “true” fans, attempt to set strict boundaries on who belongs, who qualifies, and who’s allowed to have a voice.

While gatekeeping is sometimes framed as a way to preserve the "purity" or "authenticity" of a community, it ultimately denies individuals their autonomy. When people are told that they don’t belong because they aren’t “real fans” or don’t have the “right” credentials, they’re being denied the freedom to express themselves and define their interests on their own terms. Often, this behavior serves more to placate the egos of those doing the gatekeeping than to protect the community itself. This article explores how gatekeeping in online communities is a form of control that suppresses individuality, reinforces rigid boundaries, and undermines the very spirit of connection that these communities are meant to foster.

---

1. The Nature of Gatekeeping: Who Gets to Decide?

Gatekeeping in online communities is often a power play, where a select group assumes the authority to decide who qualifies as a legitimate member of the group. This authority might stem from seniority, specialized knowledge, or simply a strong sense of personal attachment to the community. But regardless of the reasons, gatekeepers take it upon themselves to set unwritten rules for others, effectively claiming ownership over something meant to be shared.

This dynamic is deeply tied to autonomy. Autonomy is the right to self-governance, to make choices based on one’s own beliefs, interests, and desires. When gatekeepers dictate what it means to be a “real” fan or a “true” member, they impose their own standards on others, depriving them of the freedom to participate in their own way. Instead of allowing each member to engage as they see fit, gatekeeping establishes a hierarchy where only certain voices, experiences, and identities are validated. This denial of autonomy discourages people from being their authentic selves and pressures them to conform to someone else’s expectations.

2. Gatekeeping and Identity Policing: The Destructive Impact on Self-Expression

In many online communities, identity is a central theme. People come to these spaces to explore their interests, whether it’s a fandom, a hobby, a political movement, or a lifestyle. Gatekeeping, however, often manifests as identity policing, where individuals are scrutinized and questioned about their legitimacy. This is especially common in fan communities, where gatekeepers might challenge someone’s knowledge of a series, music genre, or game, suggesting that a “true fan” would know more or act a certain way.

This policing of identity is a direct assault on autonomy. It sends the message that individuals don’t have the right to define themselves on their own terms. For example, if someone joins a community dedicated to a specific genre of music, they shouldn’t have to justify their love for it by proving they know every obscure fact or have listened to every album. Their passion, regardless of how deep or recent, should be enough. By gatekeeping, long-time members undermine this right to self-definition and create an environment where new or diverse voices are stifled.

In a space that values autonomy, people are free to express their identity without fear of judgment or interrogation. But gatekeeping robs individuals of this freedom, forcing them to meet arbitrary standards in order to be accepted. This restricts their ability to engage authentically and reduces the diversity of voices within the community, which can ultimately make it less welcoming and vibrant.

3. The Ego Trap: Gatekeeping as a Means of Self-Validation

While gatekeepers often claim they are preserving the community’s integrity, many of these actions are more about preserving their own egos. By asserting the authority to decide who belongs, gatekeepers elevate themselves to a position of control, making themselves feel more legitimate, knowledgeable, or “authentic” than others. This behavior feeds into their own sense of importance, transforming what should be a shared space into one where they hold power over others’ experiences.

This need for validation can lead to behaviors that are more exclusionary than protective. Rather than truly safeguarding the community, gatekeepers may be using their position to reinforce their own sense of superiority. By placing themselves as arbiters of “real” membership, they gain a platform for self-aggrandizement, often at the expense of others’ autonomy. This becomes especially damaging in online spaces that are supposed to foster connection and mutual respect, as it shifts the community’s focus from shared interests to an individual’s need for dominance.

In reality, true community-building doesn’t come from setting rigid rules and standards; it comes from creating a space where everyone can explore, learn, and connect freely. Gatekeeping, when driven by ego, stifles that growth and ultimately serves the gatekeeper more than the community itself.

4. The Fear of “Dilution” and the Myth of Authenticity

One of the main arguments gatekeepers use to justify their actions is the fear of “dilution.” They worry that newcomers or casual participants will water down the community’s authenticity, reducing it to something shallow or overly popularized. This mindset is especially prevalent in niche communities that have seen rapid growth, where long-time members may feel a sense of loss as the group becomes mainstream.

But this fear of dilution is often based on a myth—that there’s a single, “pure” version of the community that must be preserved at all costs. In reality, communities are constantly evolving, shaped by new members, ideas, and influences. This fluidity is what makes them dynamic and resilient. When gatekeepers try to stop this natural evolution, they’re not protecting authenticity; they’re enforcing stagnation. True authenticity comes from allowing people to contribute their unique perspectives, not from keeping the community locked in the past.

Gatekeeping, then, becomes a way to control others’ engagement and expression. By denying new members the autonomy to bring their own interpretations and experiences, gatekeepers undermine the organic growth of the community. This insistence on a narrow definition of authenticity is ultimately about power, not preservation. It denies the community the richness that comes from diverse voices and ideas, reducing it to an exclusive club that benefits only a select few.

5. Gatekeeping as a Symptom of Insecurity and the Need for Control

At its core, gatekeeping is often rooted in insecurity. For some, being part of a niche community or having specialized knowledge is a source of pride, a way to feel unique and valuable. When new members join, especially in large numbers, it can feel like this sense of specialness is under threat. In response, gatekeepers try to enforce barriers, defining themselves as the “true” members to preserve their sense of identity and importance.

But this need for control is ultimately self-defeating. True autonomy and fulfillment come from self-assurance, from knowing one’s own value without needing to impose it on others. Gatekeeping, by contrast, is an attempt to establish self-worth by diminishing others—a behavior that only deepens insecurity. By clinging to exclusivity, gatekeepers trap themselves in a cycle of constant validation, relying on the power to exclude as a crutch for self-esteem. This approach undermines not only their own autonomy but the autonomy of everyone else in the community.

---

6. Embracing Autonomy: Creating Inclusive, Authentic Online Spaces

For online communities to thrive, they need to embrace autonomy at all levels. This means respecting each individual’s right to engage in their own way, without gatekeepers setting arbitrary standards for membership or legitimacy. By recognizing the unique contributions of each member, communities can foster a culture of mutual respect and growth, allowing people to explore their identities and passions without fear of judgment.

One way to encourage autonomy is to promote a culture of inclusivity, where diverse perspectives are celebrated rather than policed. Community guidelines should emphasize respect for different levels of experience, ensuring that new members feel welcome to participate without having to “prove” themselves. Veteran members can play a key role by leading with openness, setting an example that encourages curiosity and exploration rather than gatekeeping.

---

7. Conclusion: Choosing Freedom Over Control

Gatekeeping is, at its heart, a denial of autonomy. It restricts individuals’ freedom to explore, express, and define themselves within a community. By imposing arbitrary standards and policing identity, gatekeepers stifle the diversity and vibrancy that make communities thrive. In the end, this behavior often placates the egos of the gatekeepers more than it preserves the community, serving no one except those who seek validation through exclusion.

True community is built on a foundation of respect and shared purpose, where each member is free to engage in a way that feels authentic to them. By choosing freedom over control, online communities can cultivate spaces that respect autonomy, celebrate diversity, and evolve with the needs and interests of their members. Embracing this approach allows online spaces to become what they were always meant to be: places where people can come together, share, and grow, without fear of judgment or exclusion.