No, I criticize the idea of un-constructive criticism especially in cases where the solution is non-obvious (my second point). Constructive criticism would have been, for example, "here's five things that should have been done differently and here's why they would have helped." If you cannot inspire change in an issue with constructive criticism then all you're doing is throwing dice and hoping the change will be positive since you have no idea what that change should actually be.
There's value in criticizing without a solution, because then someone else can read the criticism and perhaps be inspired to a solution. Or multiple people can debate the pros and cons of different solutions together.
Societal progress is the work of people working together, each contributing their part. We need some people to point out problems and other people to fix them. There's zero reason they need to be the same person.
Except then you get emotionally driven hatred of people and situations. After all, that is exactly what this sort of criticism is designed to inspire. That, in turn, tends to lead to solutions that don't actually fix the problem but just make people feel satisfied regarding their hatred.
No, I criticize the idea of un-constructive criticism especially in cases where the solution is non-obvious (my second point). Constructive criticism would have been, for example, "here's five things that should have been done differently and here's why they would have helped." If you cannot inspire change in an issue with constructive criticism then all you're doing is throwing dice and hoping the change will be positive since you have no idea what that change should actually be.