Copyleft licences "care about the user" as in "as a user, I want you to be able to patch the code you run so I enforce it in my licence". It's a different philosophy from permissive licences that say "companies can use them in their closed, proprietary product, I just want them to mention somewhere that they use my code". Note that more often than not, those using permissive licences don't even bother to follow that simple rule.

As a user, I'm happier with copyleft. I like to take my Marshall smart speaker as an example: that thing doesn't get any updates, ever. But it connects to the Internet. The app absolutely sucks, the connectivity is passable at best (often frustrating), but the hardware itself is nice (it looks nice in my living room and the sound is good when it works).

If all the open source software running inside that thing was GPLv3, Marshall would have to provide me with a way to patch it. So at the very least I could make security updates myself. But because Marshall used permissively-licenced dependencies, they locked it down in such a way that I can't do that.

The permissive licence helped Marshall, but for me as a user, the code may as well be proprietary.

Explain what you mean by "objectively better"? Your response makes it sound like you don't know the difference and are doing it because everybody else does it. It also makes it sounds like you don't understand the difference between open source software and free software. Both are free licenses, open source is just one part of it.

The main difference is that GPL3 is a copyleft license, whereas MIT is not. Meaning that legally there is nothing in the license preventing a company from taking your code and using it for their purposes without having to contribute to improve the code.