Many in the sub of late have discussed, at no short length, the issue of gatekeeping. Their idea of gatekeeping, though, can often be a bit exaggerated. Let me get the first point out of the way.
When someone says “Anti-work doesn't mean some minor change to work, it means a radical shift in how labor is performed and how it's organized”, whether they're gatekeeping depends on one simple fact: When they say “Anti-work”, are they talking about the sub itself, or about the actual political position of anti-work philosophy?
The fact is, even if many of those on this sub are not themselves anti-work in the sense of the philosophy, anti-work did not originate here as an idea. This space is a product of anti-work theory, not its parent, and so long as the space is to be defined by that political theory it nominally is about a specific set of things. What this space is about, and what anti-work means, are two separate issues.
There are certainly some gatekeepers who say others are not radical enough to be here, and they are frankly failing to recognize what this space is. As the description says, this is “A subreddit for those who want to end work, are curious about ending work, want to get the most out of a work-free life, want more information on anti-work ideas and want personal help with their own jobs/work-related struggles.” People that are here to learn, or who simply want advice, should by all means be welcomed.
But equally dangerous as the above gatekeepers are those who demand that others not speak on radical ideas, for fear that they are “purity testing”. They will call others gatekeepers, and say that anti-work isn't really about radical ideas, but is rather about their specific notions of what it is, or their perception of what the space is. The issue here is, this is in itself gatekeeping what the sub is. If it has no room for a radical current, then the space will be watered down and recuperated very quickly into an ineffectual brick, another vaguely leftist book club. I am of the belief that this is a deliberate tactic, which some, even anarchists, are unfortunately buying into.
Let me be clear. I believe that anti-work philosophy means that work should be abolished, labor should be performed on a voluntary basis for the collective benefit of all, and labor should be reorganized in such a way that exploitative relationships are no longer a part of it. This space is separate from that idea, and that is fine, so long as it remains that way. But the current popular perception is that this space is the anti-work movement. If it is to be the anti-work movement, then it should at least stay true to the ideals of anti-work, but if it is to be a separate matter, they should at least change the name to avoid harming the reputation of the real-world movement.