Kinda depends on whether you're publishing open source software so that people can use it. And if you're not publishing open source software so that people can use it, why exactly are you doing it? If you don't want people to use it, GPL is the way to go. If you do want people to use it, MIT or BSD is a much better way to go.
As a counterexample: I would rather use GPL or AGPL licensed code on my machine, than merely MIT licensed code, because I see the philosophical difference behind it, due to copyleft. Someone who makes some code available under (A)GPL wants it to stay available under a free software license. Someone who releases under MIT is either uninformed, or has different motivation , that does not fully align with keeping things libre for people. It is less safe against being made proprietary in the future. Anyone can come and make a new version that is proprietary and has that one more feature, luring people into using the proprietary version instead of the open source one.
So I have much more trust in (A)GPL licensed projects, and I see them as more for the people than MIT licensed projects.
Linux, Git and the entire GNU system are counterexamples. Meanwhile FreeBSD dies by the day.
People != the legal departments of corporations.
GPL is for when you want people to use it. MIT is for when you want megacorporations to turn it into enshittified proprietary software and profit off of it without giving back to you.
Sure. Why not?
>"If you don't want people to use it, GPL is the way to go"
lol