I don't think that inhibiting the better players accomplishes anything, but I think providing boosts to the poorer players (death streak perks, shorter respawn timers, quicker nitro recharge when falling way behind) is a good thing that benefits the game in the long run. Making sure that those people feel like they can still be somewhat competitive by keeping them in the game will only encourage them to continue playing and allow them to get better
I'd prefer better matchmaking. Skill mitigation is a jerry-rig solution to the core problem that competitive games _require competition_. I wouldn't have fun playing tennis with Roger Federer, he wouldn't have fun playing with me. You can throw handicaps to make it more fun for both of us, or you can find a proper opponent for him and a proper opponent for me.
In GTA5, I can't see anyone playing that game competitively, so the rubberbanding would help alleviate frustration for less skilled players. For any actual competitive game: I prefer either larger teams (so that the skill balance between the two is more likely to be even), or utilize skill-based matchmaking.
So long as it's optional, sure. I'd probably take a handicap in my favour against some of my friends who play fighting games - otherwise they'd likely Perfect me in the opening 10 secs, and that would only be fun for so long.
Multiplayer developers face an immense challenge in balancing their game for casual, intermediate and highly skilled players. I think StarCraft 2's matchmaking with it's tiered leagues is a great approach, but every game is different and there isn't a solution for everyone.
I'm ok with it until they come up with better ways to group players together. Then again I rarely play multiplayer unless it's with my friends. Even then it's mostly co-op. I'm not a competitive person and I usually can't stand the people who populate games online.
Games tend to have mechanics which reward the player who is already winning. I find that incredibly sloppy.
People are looking at it ego-wise, like "I should deserve to win" or "my opponent should not win". I care more about whether everyone is having fun, and maybe even more so whether the game is good, rather than ego. This is a site for critical analysis of games, but we're discussing our egos?