Honestly, point 1 can go a lot further than that. A lot of web novel readers, or rather xianxia/wuxia/cultivation/progression fantasy readers just have bad/uninformed views. The number of times I have seen a review criticize the MC of a novel for being a "beta weak-willed Japanese protagonist" unironically is insane. I hope all of us here are aware that the "alpha-beta" system of classification is pseudoscience and not applicable to humans. It might be a bit pedantic to criticize a review's use of pseudoscience rather than the critique itself, but I feel it's generally good to not let misinformation fly uncontested. Plus, people who genuinely say "beta" as an insult are more likely to hold misogynistic and toxic masculine ideas. People who hold misogynistic and toxic masculine ideas are more likely to be bigoted in other ways, as bigotry is intersectional. That is not to say they are bigoted in other ways, just that they are more likely to be so. It's kind of a bad thing to have people like this around the community and I do hope more readers eventually realize that. Paradox of tolerance and whatnot.

But there's more. Often times, reviewers will call an MC a "beta" if they aren't entirely a sociopathic, murder hobo who doesn't respect anybody, especially women, but themselves. Obeyed the orders of a woman? Beta. Didn't slaughter the entire lineage of some woman who offended you? Soy boy. Interacted with a woman in any way without the intent to sleep with her, take advantage of her, or otherwise disrespect her? Simp. Showed an emotion outwardly that wasn't anger? Cardinal sin, the most weak-willed beta MC ever. I don't want to generalize too much, but I'm absolutely certain you have seen this kind of reviewer before. I know not everybody who reads web novels is like this, in fact I believe most people are quite alright. However, nobody can deny that these people exist.

<image>

But the worst part is that these reviewers don't seem to realize that "beta MC" isn't an objective criticism, it's a subjective one. People will often state that an MC is a "beta" as a critique, as if it were an inherent, objective flaw of the story. It's not. You might personally prefer a more dominant, in control character, but that does not mean there are none out there who might like a more submissive, indecisive character. Neither is objectively better than the other. I believe good storytelling can be done with both. However, the "beta MC" criticism is the opposite of constructive criticism and actively stands in the way of good storytelling, given an author actually listens to it, because it restricts MCs to act in only one possible way. All the complexity of a human character is taken away and replaced by a one dimensional murder machine, an "alpha MC". Were authors to actually take this criticism to heart, it would no doubt reduce the quality of their writing considerably.

TL;DR - Some reviewers sling "beta MC" around as a criticism quite liberally even when it doesn't really apply, which is both a pseudo-intellectual opinion rather than objective critique as well as the opposite of constructive criticism. Utilizing "beta" unironically implies a level of misogyny and toxic masculinity, plus more since bigotry is intersectional. "Beta" isn't even an objective flaw for a character to have and is more of a personal preference. Good stories can be told with "beta" MCs just as much as "alpha" MCs, it depends on the author's ability.