Conversely, it means that the software can end up in places it wouldn’t otherwise. This could be better for consumers if the alternative is a poorer quality library with a more permissive license.

This is an ideological view that I would oppose. GPL is beneficial for the user compared to MIT because any improvements made by users of a project will be open for everybody again. With MIT it's just easier to make a profit without giving back. That is not in the interest of consumers

It sounds like we agree? With the GPL all users have the right to look at the code. With MIT none do.

This seems like a pretty straightforward consumer benefit that anyone should be able to acknowledge regardless of which license they develop with.

indeed, sorry, not sure why I got this wrong

yeah seems like they read your comment wrong