I see where you're coming from, but I'd like to add a counter-argument to that. I'm currently working on a (mono-) repository with 40-something devs working on it, and we've recently switched from a "everything goes"-commit-history-approach to enforced linear history (while only a handful of people are allowed to directly commit on main-lines without a pull request).
The main reasoning was this: It became almost impossible to understand why a build broke on the mainline by just looking at the commit-history itself. It was always needed to go through build-logs and such to get the picture of the how and why, and often even to get to the 'who', because the commit-history itself was just riddled with merge-commits. For the few devs who took care of that, this was a huge issue, while everyone else was just happily committing away.
So going to the linear-history-approach made "analyze, understand" a breeze, but made "insertion" harder. We had to put in quite a bit of effort to get everyone up to speed (rebase, squash, reset, cherry-pick etc.) and set up some tooling for basic sanity-checks (pre-push-hooks etc.), but it was well-worth it, and a lot of devs were actually happy to be guided through this because for them it's clear that this will also be useful further down the road (in other jobs), not just for the current task at hand.
And at last: It's really not that big of a deal. Just before opening a pull-request (or whatever your equivalent is), have a look through your change-set, run a bunch of commands if necessary, and done. Once you get the hang of it, it's pretty straight forward. It might not be worth it for you personally, but if you work on a repository with many other devs, there might be others who are grateful for that.