If it is actually criticism (as opposed to blatant, unjustified, unsubstantial attacks) I see/take it mostly as a negotiation of sorts usually after searching for the understanding, e.g. different priorities, fix of flaw, lack of possibilities, etc. Then you can simply evaluate whether the criticism makes sense.

I do think in many cases it makes sense for someone to start with questions to understand the ideas first, but that often doesn't happen. (Or provide reasoning and/or context to the criticism, to make it useful.) I found it also isn't always immediately obvious which aspects is emphasized with criticism, especially if (too) concise.

Of course, if they attack the person it's not really criticism anyways.