It’s not just targeted at that group, it’s supposedly meant only for that group to be able to participate, so it should be set to private in the community settings. Being set to public is for a community that everyone in the public can participate in, while being set to private is for a community that only some people can participate in.
I view plenty of communities I don’t post in because I have no relevant knowledge or experience. Even if I were outright excluded from posting I’d still find the discussions interesting. People don’t need to hear my opinion for me to get value out of something.
That’s your choice. It’s a completely different thing.
In fact, we generally consider toxic communities where there is a harsh form of gatekeeping (which in your example would be same result, but the result of the community’s choice, not yours).
Do we? And is that form of gatekeeping harsh, or do you think anything that excludes you is “toxic?”
I’d have a hard time thinking of any group I’m a part of that doesn’t have rules around who can participate. That’s a part of maintaining healthy, relevant discussion in a safe space for members, especially when it’s been well documented that this particular group has had their voices overpowered by the group they’re excluding.
We do, look at how many critique posts there are about toxic neckbeard groups, for example about hardcore technical topics where beginners are ridiculed and excluded (i.e., gatekeeping). Or about gym buff communities, where beginners are ignored or made fun of.
Wouldn’t you call those communities toxic?
any group I’m a part of that doesn’t have rules around who can participate.
Rules about who can participate are absolutely fine, necessary even. Generally those rules are based on what you do, not who you are, though.
well documented that this particular group has had their voices overpowered by the group they’re excluding.
I believe that forcing to identify yourself in some way and heavy moderation would be enough (moderation based on what you do) for an online community. But anyway, I don’t have a problem with those rules in general. However, in your original comment you compared a community keeping you out to your own restraint into participating in a community you feel you have nothing to contribute to.
To go back to my example, there is a huge difference between not participating in a technical post that goes over your head and just reading other people’s opinion vs being banned for having demonstrated to be at a lower level of understanding (gatekeeping).
or do you think anything that excludes you is “toxic?”
To address this tiny veiled provocation, I don’t like to participate in communities that gatekeep people, whether I am in the ingroup or not. In fact, I heavily dislike purists in fields I deal with (e.g., selfhosting, tech in general), which is the most common form of gate keeping, and I definitely don’t participate in their communities.
It’s not just targeted at that group, it’s supposedly meant only for that group to be able to participate, so it should be set to private in the community settings. Being set to public is for a community that everyone in the public can participate in, while being set to private is for a community that only some people can participate in.
I view plenty of communities I don’t post in because I have no relevant knowledge or experience. Even if I were outright excluded from posting I’d still find the discussions interesting. People don’t need to hear my opinion for me to get value out of something.
That’s your choice. It’s a completely different thing.
In fact, we generally consider toxic communities where there is a harsh form of gatekeeping (which in your example would be same result, but the result of the community’s choice, not yours).
Do we? And is that form of gatekeeping harsh, or do you think anything that excludes you is “toxic?”
I’d have a hard time thinking of any group I’m a part of that doesn’t have rules around who can participate. That’s a part of maintaining healthy, relevant discussion in a safe space for members, especially when it’s been well documented that this particular group has had their voices overpowered by the group they’re excluding.
We do, look at how many critique posts there are about toxic neckbeard groups, for example about hardcore technical topics where beginners are ridiculed and excluded (i.e., gatekeeping). Or about gym buff communities, where beginners are ignored or made fun of.
Wouldn’t you call those communities toxic?
Rules about who can participate are absolutely fine, necessary even. Generally those rules are based on what you do, not who you are, though.
I believe that forcing to identify yourself in some way and heavy moderation would be enough (moderation based on what you do) for an online community. But anyway, I don’t have a problem with those rules in general. However, in your original comment you compared a community keeping you out to your own restraint into participating in a community you feel you have nothing to contribute to. To go back to my example, there is a huge difference between not participating in a technical post that goes over your head and just reading other people’s opinion vs being banned for having demonstrated to be at a lower level of understanding (gatekeeping).
To address this tiny veiled provocation, I don’t like to participate in communities that gatekeep people, whether I am in the ingroup or not. In fact, I heavily dislike purists in fields I deal with (e.g., selfhosting, tech in general), which is the most common form of gate keeping, and I definitely don’t participate in their communities.