No, the GPLv3 grants the user more freedoms than a license like MIT - they can demand the source from someone who has provided them the binary. It grants potential distributors fewer freedoms - they must provide sources and cannot distribute under incompatible licenses.
When I said "user" I meant "developer". Most of my open source code is licensed under the MIT license because it grants developers more freedoms than a GPL-like license would.
Also, I believe that by allowing distributors to use your code without forcing them to release their code you don't restrict potential users' freedoms - if a company wanted to use your library in their project and your license is not compatible with it they will just find another project or write a similar one themselves. The result for the user is the same: they will not get access to the code.
For "developer" it is substantially more true than it is for "user", to be sure. In principle, the power to demand the source gives me more freedom as a developer too - where with an MIT licensed executable I might not be able to find the code - but I'll readily admit that that aspect of it, when the author means the code to be distributed, is not terribly likely to be important when stuff lives on GitHub or even SourceForge or whatever.
As a developer, though, I'd rather have more code I can read and learn from and tweak and borrow than yet another proprietary product that I'll probably ignore - even if you're giving me 10x more of the latter.
