Now for a contrarian comment: whenever I read "in Rust", or whatever language, it does not make it cool or interesting to me. Rather, it makes it sound like it is a POC or training material. Which is unfortunate because eventually, as a user, I only care for features, not for tech.
Since we usually can't change too much of our environment, but we can change how we react to our environment, my recommendation would be to simply just ignore the "in X" in titles you see here, as what you say is true, it basically doesn't matter.
If the software is shit, it's shit, no matter if it's shit in PHP or in Rust.
Unfortunately this makes it a "new reddit clone" (with websockets and react SPA) not an old reddit or hn clone.
Agreed to some extent though, once something is done, what it was written in - should be irrelevant to the end user.
To be fair though, a few weeks ago there were people on here bashing rust claiming it's like impossible to use, async didn't work, the code is unreadable, shouldn't do web dev with it, etc. Meanwhile, here's yet another example of rust being just fine. So I'm glad they shared the technology they used.
When said software is open source, it allows me to hack on it, improve it, etc.
What is imporrant is rhat if there's no perceived value for me as a user, no matter the tech, I'll most probably ignore it. On the other hand, I could learn any tech should I need it to propose more value to a software.
That is why I couldn't care less about the "in Rust/Python/Haskell/Zig/..."
I'm not opposed to people doing that, I'm just the kind of user that takes zero interest into it until I want to contribute to add value to the software.
Let's say I'm product-first rather than tech-first.
It's the (evtl. statically) compiled versus the scripted ones. And among the scripted again is one ubiquitous and can be lean on dependencies (sh).
So IMO there is certain interest in how it's built. And it may attract contributors, inspire or serve as a warning.