More like, if a submission has "written in Rust" in it, the Rust cultists and non-human bots will automatically upvote it.
There are definitely financial stakes at play, but financially interested Rust advocates are by far the worst of the bunch regarding behavior, apart from the Rust cult, which by lightyears is the worst of any programming language, with their organized social media manipulation and harassment and murderous ways. The Rust Foundation and others in the Rust community inherited and evolved their fundraising approach from Mozilla, and the Rust Foundation actively gives money to people whose primary job is to "promote" Rust, instead of purely giving it to developers to develop on compilers, tools, infrastructure and related technical topics. Other really bad offenders include, perhaps surprisingly, the Ada vendors, user pjmlp might be leading the charge there. Ada vendors still long for the days where they had a monopoly mandated by the US government.
Mojo got a billion dollar investment, but they seem to be focused on not shilling their language, but actually making a genuinely excellent language, though I have not tried it myself. As an example, it seems to handle temporary lifetime extension way better than Rust, C++ and Zig, with its explicit destructors among other features.
For languages like Scala and C++, they are way too embroiled in internal infighting to do much of anything. Funnily enough, one side of C++ is dominated by Rust cultists. C++ has an ISO standard, and is very complex, meaning some of the main proponents there are educators and book writers, though they generally seem focused inwards. No one really likes C++, it is too old and has very significant issues, but it can have practical value in some cases. Its ISO standard also hinders any party from gaining complete control of it, though its design and development has already been sabotaged from the inside, and it counts against C++ that it has failed to prevent that much sabotage. Rust is also facing sabotage from the inside, but this seems to be more due to tragedy of the commons, where proposal makers consider it more important for their proposals to become part of the Rust language (and the proposal maker in question getting prestige) than for the Rust language to improve, something that many languages suffer from. The Rust community might also in several cases be too afraid of their own cultists to say no to proposals or to criticize proposals properly. "Democratization" in Rust has been interpreted by some as that there should be no or barely any requirements and expectations for language changes. The lies and dishonesty of the Rust community and cult only worsens this issue.
Zig has anti-LLM activists, but they do not seem numerous nor all that active.
C has barely anyone, just some WG14 committee members and other interested people, the language is too old, too widespread, too minimalistic and too foundational either way.
Java, C#, Kotlin, Typescript, Go, Python, and many others, all have their niches, and the ecosystems of the garbage-collected languages seem to function decently. The systems languages, on the other hand, all seem to have significant technical or practical issues in some regards or another, and being the foundation of lots of other technology, they can both be strategically important and possibly more difficult to directly make money from regarding developing and designing the given languages. I wonder how Mojo's Modular is planning to make money, perhaps strategic control? Systems languages have a lot of room for improvement still. Mojo is an interesting entry, but it is still very young and untested.
Apart from cults and financial stakes of companies, organizations and individuals, there are some people from small or failing/failed language communities that are embittered about their languages failing/having failed or not being larger. This is especially the case with Ada and overlaps with financial stakes there, but there are also many other, often very small languages. A similar boat is newcomer languages, that often transition into the embittered and failed language boat. This is tragic, because on one hand, these languages should be praised for experimentation, especially when they have genuine innovation and not just random rehashing, and on the other hand, their makers ought to be aware that there are no guarantee of success. And many designers and comminity members of small languages are indeed graceful about their language not becoming widespread, but that is not the case for all such people.
but I see your point.
(To clarify: I like Rust. I use it every day. But this is going too far.)
There was a time for CoffeeScript, PureScript, Elm, Ruby and whatever else you can think of.
Naturally Lisp has to have monthly entries.
/s