I wasn't aware that Facebook was an authority in design.
There's beautiful/functional design all over the web. But my experience of FB is that the UI is somewhere between "Mostly OK, I guess" and "That really doesn't work very well and it's annoying."
If it's taking two hours of review time a week to create that, the process may not be optimal.
Whether or not that is true doesn't matter when facebook is very much not "common understandable simplicity."
Facebook's interface is a bewildering mess to use anything other than their chat or twitter clone.
Constructive criticism is even better.
Criticism is only personal if you make it personal. Criticism is only egocentric if you make it egocentric. Criticism is on vague when it is not constructive. Criticism only belittles if it is targeted at the person and not the thing being critiqued.
That usually begins with the person doing the criticizing.
That said, I do think the GP has a point: it is possible to divide feedback according to the two sets of criteria mentioned, and that things go better when we craft our communication to be the nicer one (he called it critique, you call it constructive criticism).
I'm not going to use the fact that people should be able to handle criticism to give mean feedback. And I think that's the point he's making - we should choose to be nice.
Criticism passes judgement — Critique poses questions; Criticism finds fault — Critique uncovers opportunity; Criticism is personal — Critique is objective; Criticism is vague — Critique is concrete; Criticism tears down — Critique builds up; Criticism is ego-centric — Critique is altruistic; Criticism is adversarial — Critique is cooperative; Criticism belittles the designer — Critique improves the design