You'll have no argument from me that protection and regulation can go too far.
But have you considered that as you were traveling across different countries, you'd be biased towards seeing the problems that affect you (finding a new place to rent) and you'd not be seeing the problems that don't affect you (existing renters being abused)?
But if the market is easy, doesn't this mean that existing renters can always bounce to some new place? It seems to me that abuse can only happen if they can't find another place. Of course, you'll always have some exceptional cases but should you break the whole market just for these?
Someone who has "traveled dozens of countries recently" is probably traveling a bit lighter than someone who's lived somewhere for several years. It seems likely you're not traveling with a couch, a bed, a nice desk, a dining room set, washer/dryer, etc. that you move with you each time. (I'd guess you're not carting a couple of young children from school system to school system, too.)
Can't just construction workers bounce to a new job if their existing job is abusing them, asking them to work under unsafe conditions, etc? It would seem abuse can only happen if they can't find another job. Regulations about how the workplace can't be a deathtrap is strangulating the market. /s
Imagine you are a lone mother taking care of her kid, you are carpooling to work, and barely making ends meet. Then your landlord starts making some demands on you and starts hinting that he might throw you out otherwise. Is it realistic to say "The mother should just move out the next day, and find a new place for herself and her child, and find a new means of transportation to her job. If that new landlord abuses his power she should just move again the next day."
Your viewpoint isn't uncommon, but the last few hundred years of modern society has repeatedly demonstrated that if people have leverage over others in terms of their access to food, medicine and shelter, then that power will be abused. If companies could they'd be paying you in scrip, we had to outlaw it, not simply tell workers to find a non-scrip workplace.
For people who aren't bouncing around the world and never living in one place for more than a few months at a time, being forced to move is a very big deal even if finding the new place to live is easy.
But have you considered that as you were traveling across different countries, you'd be biased towards seeing the problems that affect you (finding a new place to rent) and you'd not be seeing the problems that don't affect you (existing renters being abused)?