LimitedDuck

Agreed, though I think it's less "we don't want you here" and more "you're on your own". I liken it to Linux in that sense where new users are expected to try harder to learn the ins and outs. The difference is with Linux what you learn can be applied in so many more places in your Linux experience. With Lemmy, once you grasp the technical depth of it there's not much you can do with it except explain it to another person.

I agree, though I probably wouldn't call it marketing or advertising. Maybe just a better and more accessible introduction and onboarding experience.

Nobody is "inserting" or "shoe-horning" anyone anywhere they don't belong. My argument has always been that systems of power have artificially, non-meritocratically, prevented competent and able people from gaining positions of power or influence because of their membership to a particular group. They're just not given a fair shot.

Now depending on how used to the traditional landscape of power some people are, a legitimately fair shot may appear like some sinister replacement theory-like plot, but that's not justice and you can't please everyone anyway. There's only so much identity a group can strategically yield before they've lost the issues they originally wanted solved.

America voted for Obama in part because he was an actual option. When people are made aware there are options for better representation, they'll take them.

I agree that technically it's not necessary; very few things are. But that begs the question, why settle for a proxy? There are many who are willing and able to represent in an equally competent way, but with the advantage of being closer to the issues. There's nothing stopping those individuals from starting the same conversations and advocating for speaking up and empathy in the same way, they are just less likely to need a figurative, and sometimes literal, translator.

You've avoided saying explicitly whether aiming for more than what's "necessary" would be detrimental to overall efforts for progressive change, but the obvious implication of the argument is "yes". The whole "perfect is the enemy of good" thing. Something like "leverage the current not-so-representative individuals in power to solve the issues because getting new, more representative people in would be" somewhere between "wasteful" and "token", depending on who's talking. I believe this is the case not because it's what works, but because we've landed here after aiming for better. The middle outcome will always be the winning one. Aim for the middle and the winning outcome will just be worse.

Additionally, the reason I specifically mention visible representation is because of how much visibility plays a part in inspiring and motivating action from the people that identify with that visible person. The backgrounds and history of these people are known and it's a significant thing to see the background you share with them not only acknowledged, but vindicated as something that didn't hold them back in finding success.

I agree, the populace needs to be taken care of and empowered. However, those supports are beholden to the systems set and maintained by those with power i.e. the "high status" positions I refer to. There's no lifting up a populace with a system that's designed to keep them down. You need a change in the people with power to create change in the systems in a way that can actually help people. That includes getting people into power that are not just sympathetic to a variety of groups, but who are part of those groups so they can bring their lived experience and visible representation to the places where meaningful decisions are made.

This guy is misleading. The left is "obsessed" with representation in "high status positions" because "high status" is a proxy for power and influence, i.e. the positions that craft the systems the affect everyone else. The systems that have been constructed and maintained over the years aggregately prefer cis straight white men.

Except OP is starting a meta discussion about Reddit discussions, not a direct discussion about Reddit. I don't necessarily agree with OP, but you've crafted an artificial contradiction using a false equivalence. I'd be happier if we left the Reddit-tier logic back where it belongs.

This will be a terrible answer to your question, but I recently listened to this episode of the Linux Unplugged podcast and they seem try to explain the situation from Red Hat's perspective. It sounds very technical, but it was interesting to listen to because up until then I had only been seeing anti Red Hat commentary online.

The sign-in experience is where you're going to get a lot of friction. Your users are going to need your server address. They'll have to log in to devices with username/password including TVs unless they have signed in once already somewhere else on the network like a desktop. Then you can set up an Easy PIN code or use Quick Connect, but those are hidden behind the user settings menu.

If you're talking about this, then it hasn't seen an update since 2021. Maybe you mean Finamp? It's a serviceable app, but it's very simple and dated-looking compared to Plexamp. Definitely better than the Jellyfin app though which is just a web wrapper.

Are you still using it? I went through many deployments before I finally thought I had it settled.

At the beginning of the pandemic I looked into ways to de-Google and found Nextcloud. It wasn't the easiest thing to start with, especially for a novice, but I had the time and the hardware, and I'm the type to not mind jumping into something difficult if it means solving a specific problem. I then found out about Bitwarden and had a great experience setting that up. After that I was confident enough to try hosting anything I could find. It's been good times ever since 😀