See Apple and Sony contributions to FreeBSD.
Like, let's extrapolate that you mean "Apple and Sony profited from FreeBSD and didn't contribute back, and that's bad". Let's assume that the strongest possible version of that statement is true.
How does that ever translate to "a Rust port of GNU coreutils under MIT license is bad"? If Apple and Sony haven't contributed to GNU coreutils in ~30 years, they're not going to start now, MIT alternative or not. There's not going to be an Apple executive who's thinking "We've held out as long as we could, but now we're going to need to start integrating coreutils in MacOS and contributing changes back... wait, no, these Rust suckers released a MIT version, I guess we can keep being greedy!".
The more copyleft code there is out there, the less choice there is for company executives to go for the proprietary solution. As a user and as an employee, you probably should care about that. As a BigCorp executive getting an indecent salary from the proprietary code that your employees wrote but that does not belong to them, of course you will not like copyleft. But most people are employees.
I take this as effectively equivalent to "you're unable to give consent" and/or "you don't have agency."
But that's the kind of mindset you're likely dealing with here.