The Flawed Notion of Criticising for Criticism's Sake
There is a logical fallacy and obnoxious common misconception about criticism. There is the "complains/protests too much" or "shouting at clouds" (or "Chasing Windmills") analogy/metaphor and it needs to be broadly rejected.
Society is propelled forward (or lifted upwards) only by those who dissent against the status quo. It has always been that way. Take Andy for example. A few years ago he quit his job as a lecturer and he now openly complains about many of the things he was previously afraid/reluctant to speak about. We, in IRC, debated parts of his latest article yesterday.
In Free Software (FS), there are many folks "Chasing Windmills", but not only have they changed the world; they changed it for the better. And they still argue with other people about the best way/s forward. No "king" or CEO dictates the direction/path all developers "must" follow (or get sacked).
Almost 20 years ago I protested against Novell mostly on the grounds of software patents. Within a few years Novell perished. A decade later the chief of the Administrative Council of the EPO basically got sacked (months after we had exposed various corrupt practices of his). A couple of years later Benoît Battistelli was edged out and maybe next year EPO President António Campinos will get the boot (there's a lot of "dirty laundry" coming or bouncing back his way).
We never criticise "for fun" or as a "hobby". We identity matters that are in urgent need of addressing, rectifying, correcting. We expose things and complain. Eventually there are concrete outcomes.
As explained here yesterday, the first stage (which is critical) is identifying the issues; the next is talking about them (the corrupt will always try to suppress discussion, even if that means lawyering up).
People who are highly critical of things are not "toxic". To call them that is sometimes an act of projection because those they bemoan are toxic, sometimes utterly corrupt. █