I definitely agree with this. If you merge to this extent then you've basically given up on having an understandable history. Rebase is much better where possible.

I think a lot of the disagreement about this is really people talking about different things. Some people say "always squash; nobody cares about the trivial typo fix commits and whatnot" and other people say "never squash; you lose important history" and really they're both right... you should squash when it's not important to preserve the history. Obviously people are going to disagree about when that is but in my experience if a PR is big enough that you think it should be more than one commit then it's too big, unless it's a big feature branch that has been worked on by multiple authors.

Similarly with rebase vs merge, if it's a small single author PR then definitely rebase. For big feature branches you may want to use merges though I would still suggest rebase is better. You just need to make sure everyone is using the safety flags when they force push.