The buzz around the web is that Adobe Lightroom does a shitty job with the handling of RAW FujiFilm X-Trans files and that Iridient X-Transformer is the fix. I think it's mostly ignorance from some photographers. Other photographers have taken a "zoom in until you find a difference" approach, testing the software, only to discover that the difference varies very subtlely between photographs and other factors help make the decision.
I think that once an image has been post-processed, then downsized and compressed for the web - most photographs are being shared online via blogs, Instagram, Facebook, etc. - that there's very little practical difference. If you are a professional photographer, aka someone whose source of income is photography, who must produce the best technical image, the difference may be of concern to you. However, if you are a photographer, professional or amateur, for whom the technical bits of photography is not the main point, then I think you must do whatever produces the results you want, even if it's the SOOC JPEG.
I've visited many art and photography galleries in my lifetime. I don't recall anyone suggesting that I use a pair of binoculars or a magnifying glass so that I could better appreciate the work.
The featured image in this blog post is a FujiFilm X-T2 RAF post-processed in Adobe Lightroom. I made adjustments to exposure, contrast, highlights, shadows, whites, blacks, vibrancy, and saturation. I left the sharpening and noise reduction at the Adobe Lightroom defaults.
While the specific setup I use if for WordPress if I used Jekyll or Hugo or some other static site generator, my image file export to disk workflow would work well for that purpose. It's similar to the preset above, except the images are export to disk. In fact, exporting images from my Adobe Lightroom catalogue to disk, to WordPress, to Instagram, to email etc. is all done with variations of this export preset. The only thing that changes is the export destination.