I think it's also a bit a question of team size. If your project has just a handful of devs working on it, merge-commits really don't matter all that much. If there are a few dozen with a good amount of juniors on the repo (a bit over 40 devs in my case), the commit-history becomes an absolutely unreadable spiderweb, that's at least my experience.
At work, we want to move towards trunk-based development (merge to master goes straight to prod), but whenever master was broken, a look at the commit-history didn't really all tell you that much about the who, how and why without checking it out and digging into it. So we've recently started to enforce linear history, in which case it is immediately obvious without the shred of a doubt who's responsible. Analyzing the build became an absolute breeze, at the cost of having a bit of a harder time at "insertion"-point (which is perfectly fine, given the fact that after merge, it should eventually go straight to prod).
It took a while to get everyone on board, but it was really worth the efforts and can only recommend it (I most definitely will prefer a workplace that is open to such practices in the future). In general, most devs were also quite happy to be guided through the process, as it is clear that git is probably one of the longer-lasting constants in our industry.
Also, I can't repeat it enough; speaking from experience, most devs severely overestimate the complexity of cherry-pick/rebase/reset/reflog etc. Whenever I had sessions explaining it or helping someone out with a problem, they had their first "aha!"-moments after a few minutes, and after that with some do-it-yourself-experience most of them get there rather fast. Obviously, there are always a few outliers who need a little bit of extra-nudging and extra-help to stay in line, but those are usually the ones who often also need that sort of assistance in other areas so that's okay.