Building anything publicly means receiving criticism. I have developed a working framework for handling it — not as emotional management, but as an analytical process for extracting what is useful from what is not.
The framework has three steps.
First: is this person in a position to know? Criticism from someone who has direct knowledge of your situation, your decisions and the context in which you made them is worth analysing seriously. Criticism from someone whose knowledge comes from a news article, a court document or secondhand account — who is characterising you from a distance — may be sincere but is not reliably accurate. Filter by epistemic position before evaluating content.
Second: is there a specific, falsifiable claim here? Criticism that contains a specific claim — you made this decision in this context and it produced this outcome — is analytically useful regardless of whether it is correct. It can be evaluated. Criticism that is purely characterological — you are a bad person, you are dishonest, you are incompetent — is not specific enough to be useful unless it is accompanied by specific evidence. Demand specificity.
Third: if the specific claim is accurate, what does that tell me about my behaviour and how would I act differently? This is the extraction step. A valid specific criticism contains a piece of data about a decision you made and its consequences. That data belongs in your formula update process.
The profound insight is that criticism, processed through this framework, is just feedback — the same as any other feedback. The emotional valence does not change the information content. Strip the emotion, apply the framework, extract what is actionable. Ignore what is not. The critics who are right about something specific are doing you a service. Take it.