the perfect browser

Basically, it allows you to steal all the code and use it in your closed-source programs, giving a green light for corporations to use open-source code without giving anything back.

GPL doesn't allow that, forcing you to open-source anything that was produced using other GPL-licensed code. That's, for example, why so much of Linux software is open-source - it commonly relies on various dependencies that are GPL-licensed, so there is no other legal option other than sharing the code as well.

It's not "stealing". It's explicitly allowed. Using IP according to its licence is the opposite of stealing.
- Ok, then call it "plagiarising".
  
  That is definitionally not plagiarising. It follows IP law, which is the opposite of plagiarism.
  
  There's more than a legal definition of plagiarism.
  Plagiarism is when you sell the work of others as your own without attribution. There are bucketloads of examples of legal plagiarism.
  I'm pretty sure that everything H. Bomberguy discussed in his plagiarism video was legal, for example.
  
  No, actually, plagiarism is a legalistic term. If IP law did not exist, neither would plagiarism.
  And if you give someone permission to use your IP, and they go ahead and use that permission, it is not plagiarism neither legally nor by any colloquial understanding of the term. That is what happens when someone uses BSD or MIT code in their proprietary software. It is explicitly allowed, by design, by intention.
  without attribution
  BSD/MIT also don't allow you to not attribute the author of the BSD/MIT code, so that doesn't even make sense. You are perhaps thinking of code released public domain, in which case, again, the author specifically chose that over BSD/MIT, and the main practical difference is not needing to give attribution, so that must be what the original author wanted.
  
  I think your legalistic view of the world is quite limiting.
  It's not illegal to rephrase what someone wrote in a book and pass it off as your own work. You can't "own" a cultural analysis. It's still plagiarism.
  
  I don't have a legalistic view of the world; I am saying plagiarism is a legalistic concept. For context, I support the abolition of law and of intellectual property. Plagiarism is a particular kind of violation of intellectual property law, and without IP, it makes no sense. You still fail to define a plagiarism outside of the law, and you also fail to define a plagiarism that does not violate MIT/BSD. MIT/BSD both require attribution. You cannot claim MIT/BSD code written by someone else as your own without breaking copyright law.
  
  What are you talking about? I've given you several examples of plagiarism outside of a legal concept, which means that there are non-legalistic definitions.
  Here's another one: copying someone's homework is plagiarism. It's not illegal, though.
  I'd argue that most acts of plagiarism are actually legal, but can result in getting your title revoked. That's not because of an IP law violation, since you don't have ownership of an argument in an academic text.
  Letting a ghostwriter write an academic paper is plagiarism, too, btw. How would that make sense in an IP law context, if the ghost writer not obtaining the IP is the whole point?
  
  Ok, in that case your definition is inclusive of things which are not conventionally considered plagiarism. Ghostwriting is commonly looked down upon, but not considered plagiarism. A large part of a non-legalistic definition of plagiarism includes a lack of consent from the original creator; if you take a job as a ghostwriter, you agree to your writing being published under a different name. If I work as a developer for someone who wants to make their own app, say a YouTuber, and they publish the app I wrote as <YouTuber's> app, most people would consider that perfectly normal and not plagiaristic, since the developer was paid for a service in which it was understood their work would be published under a different person's name.
  You are also avoiding the original question about BSD and MIT, and not explaining why that is plagiaristic. Do you still think they are plagiaristic? If so, how? Given that both the licensor explicitly wanted people to be able to re-use their code in proprietary software (i.e. consent/permission exists), and these licences require attribution (i.e. not only are you not taking credit for it, you are actively naming and crediting the original author).

It's not really an issue for the end user. But it's basically made for companies to take advantage of free hobbyist developers without needing to give anything back in return.

So if you're the kind of person who runs to foss software to get away from corporate tech bull, having a license that benefits companies more than users just kinda feels scummy.

Apple, Sony, N*****do, Netflix all use BSD but they don't contribute any code to the BSD project itself, because of the BSD allow other people/company to close source their code when using with BSD

Sony actually does contribute. https://christitus.com/sony-playstation-and-freebsd/
TBH, considering those corporations, most of that would be DRM stuff, and they can't let that leak in any format. Others are drivers.

It's not a viral copyleft license, so you're free to use the source code without giving anything back.

This has pros and cons over something like GPL, but people like to circlejerk GPL and pretend it's always the best option 100% of the time.
For situations where you have to sign an NDA and are unable to release source code (eg; console game dev), MIT and BSD licensed projects are a godsend.

MIT/BSD also makes the most sense for small/minimal projects where GPL is likely overkill. A 100 line script does not need to be GPL'ed. A small static website does not need to be GPL'ed.

Remember the Minix operating system that runs on your processors ? It's a proprietary spyware now because of BSD licencing