GabrielKross It depends. Some advice is useful. Structural criticism is the best kind of criticism, because it's not personal, and it actually points at the underlying problems of the story itself, rather than subjective, emotional feedback.
I'm actually happy for constructive criticism. Like when someone points out, "okay, your transition is pretty bad here, there's not much flow here." Or "what is your character's goal? It doesn't seem clear here." The mechanical issues. "The conflict seems absent" or "the climax seems to be placed at an odd place." Maybe grammar and spelling mistakes. "You have a typo here." "Punctuation is missing here." "Dont flunctuate between present and past tenses."
However, a lot of the criticism or feedback consist of "this character is stupid." "MC is spineless/weak/retarded." Or he's an idiot. Or "story is boring." Or "story is s*." That's not useful at all. I'm not writing a story to pander to your particular taste of super-smart, genius, overpowered protagonists. I'm trying to slowly develop him from weak to strong. Now if I get something on pacing, I am happy. For example, "these scenes seem to drag on" or "the climax feels too rushed" or "the standoff is too slow." However, if your complaints about pacing is "why is he still so weak at chapter 20 (when it's a 500-chapter story)?" that's not about pacing, that's you just wanting a strong protagonist, which is not what my story is about.
You have to learn to filter which is the right and useful advice and which is subjective and overly emotional - usually from readers who get upset because you're not writing the story THEY want to read (the sense of entitlement here is unreal). As I said, usually the most helpful criticism is structural. Because it doesn't get too personal or emotional and actually addresses the underlying problems of the story, not making it all about "how dare you not write the story that I want to read?!".