"your" take is ignorant of incredibly basic philosophy, like solipsism.
it's a trite variation on the tired internet tropes of "ai psychosis", "mental illness", "mind virus", "groupthink", "hivemind", and so on.
if you somehow do not recognize this, that should greatly concern you.
> Truth doesnt need evangelism.
for the record, it's not that i don't find this article "evangelism". i do, and to the extent it is so, it is a bit cringe, like all "pushes" are. but what you describe as religion is well explained as cheap seo and marketing. it's the current hotness, and Torvalds is a pseudo-celebrity. people participating, in contrast, is also well covered by regular tribalism, which the internet has forever fanned the flames of.
but also no, unless you're some sort of oracle of this world, you very obviously do sometimes need to be convinced about things that others already know as correct and true. the act of having to convince people is not a signal for distinguishing lie from truth. the ratios of people behind each stance isn't either. i know this, for the simple reason that i have been wrong in my life before.
> Nobody posts multiple times here or any social media, that the sky is blue because its a truth that doesnt need publicity.
try in winter when the sky is white?
give a brief attempt to substituting "truth" with "tacit experience". suddenly the difference will pop out, and you'll immediately see why "evangelism" exists without having to defer to internet tropes to handwave it away.
it'd seem that people experience things from different perspectives and to different extents. it'd also seem that a great way to egg people on is to assert the opposite of their lived experience (their truth).
relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50047422
same era where incredibly basic facts of the world are routinely denied on social media by the way, so bit of a curveball to bring up. at this point, i expect literally anything being debated.