Gaslighting: How ‘Anti-Gatekeeping’ Rhetoric Shields Misinformation

“Those of us in post-production live at the crossroads between artistic and technical. I’ve noticed a troubling trend: using technical knowledge as gatekeeping – ridiculing those who don’t use ‘right’ terms instead of fostering collaboration.” – Daniel Bañuelos Cuéllar| LinkedIn (July 2025)

Spread  Inaccuracies —> Play The Victim 

Bañuelos’ “anti-gatekeeping” plea is damage control for his own technical malpractice: 

The Playbook

1. Spread misinformation (e.g., “Rec.2020 is Rec.1886 with a wider gamut,” “Display P3 maps from Rec.1886”).

2. Reframes critics as “bullies” when corrected.

3. Mobilize sympathy (126+ LinkedIn likes, 9 reposts) by equating technical rigor with elitism.

This is textbook DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender). 

Hypocrisy Unmasked

• Public Persona:

“Don’t correct Rec.709 usage – it’s pedantic!” 

• Actual Practice:

“Yedlin clarifies: when people say ‘Rec.709’, they actually mean Rec.1886 […] I don’t use it because I have the documents.”

Translation: “I police others’ terminology while demanding immunity for my own errors.”

Why This Isn’t Gatekeeping

Demanding accuracy on Rec.2020 ≠ Rec.1886 isn’t elitism – it’s preventing workflow chaos. Bañuelos weaponizes ‘kindness’ to shield dangerous errors. When a “DaVinci Resolve Certified Trainer” claims Rec.2020 is ‘Rec.1886 with a wider gamut,’ he isn’t being ‘colloquial’- he’s erasing color science. And his victim narrative? It’s gaslighting followers into accepting ignorance as professionalism.