MIT licensed projects can be taken and sold by others without sharing any changes made to it. With GPL, all changes when taken by a third party need to be openly available for everybody. So the hardcore FOSS community (which GNU certainly counts to, see Richard Stallmann) is against using MIT and alike as it enables others to profit from your work without giving back any improvements to the open community.

(hand wavy, non-detailed explanation - read other sources for clarity)

So the MIT license is less restricted for users, but ultimately only in the interest of people looking for profit, not consumers

Specifically, if you are making a widget with embedded linux, the anti-tivoisation clauses in GPLv3 are a bit of a pain (even if you are not particularly trying to lock down the system from tinkering): they effectively mean you need to develop and provide an extra partial-update mechanism.

The MIT license is two paragraphs long. The GPL is little more than a page, plus a very informative preamble.

Don’t take anyone’s word for what they say or which is better. Read them.

To consumers, it isn’t. It removes beneficial terms from users.