Falsifying history isn't wrong in itself. Falsifying a shared history is, because it breaks other copies of the repo. So long as a branch exists only in a sin

Falsifying history isn't wrong in itself. Falsifying a shared history is, because it breaks other copies of the repo. So long as a branch exists only in a single repo, then the history of that branch can be rewritten without issue. But a shared branch should never be rewritten, because you'd need to copy the alterations into all copies of the repo. I take issue with tools that prioritize rebasing, because they usually make this distinction between rebasing a local branch and rebasing a shared branch. For example, GitHub's "Squash and Merge" or "Rebase and Merge" options break the shared history between the remote copy of the repo and my local copy. After such an operation, I cannot merge from main into my development branch, and must instead rebase my development branch onto main.