I disagree with this to a certain extent. I don't see a problem with hunters being critical of each other. I can think of numerous examples in the brief history of North American conservation where hunters were probably critical of each other doing things that were legal at the time, but not necessarily best for the long term outlook of a given species. Switching from lead shot to steel shot for waterfowl, antler restrictions on whitetails, not riding around in a pickup and shooting turkeys with a .22 mag, etc., etc.Hunters who spend their time criticizing other hunters for hunting the wrong way and/or hunting for the wrong reasons are more potentially destructive to the future of hunting than anti-hunters will ever be. Hunting is one of the main tools of successful game management. Hunters need to kill the right number of animals each year in order to keep game populations in balance. And game management as a whole can't happen without the money that hunting generates. It's short-sighted and foolish to think that everything would be better if hunters just stopped spending money, boycotted landowners and guides, and all had the "right" motivations for hunting. The deer and elk who are killed every year during hunting season don't care why the guy or gal who killed them chose to go hunting. And they don't care if the guy or gal who killed them spent any money on the hunt or not. All of that only matters to some guy that gets his panties in a wad over some other hunter who isn't hunting the same way as him or with the same thoughts about hunting as him.
Matt just needs to go hunting however, wherever and whenever he wants to, and then he needs to quit worrying about how and why other hunters hunt. If he's successful in his endeavor to end paid hunting on private lands, he'll destroy game populations all across the country. If there's no value assigned to the animals, there will be no incentive for landowners to tolerate them on their land. They'll replace the wild game with livestock or some other cash crop. Matt isn't thinking about what would happen in response to and as a result of his proposed action.
A good example of people aligning with your first sentence are all of the industry guys who support fanning turkeys, despite the recent downward trends in population pretty much everywhere. I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who's turkey hunted that fanning gobblers is basically a cheat code, yet you have people like Michael Waddell almost quoting your sentence above saying that people who criticize other hunters are the problem.
I think that one of Matt's main arguments is that influencers are utilizing social media to make a profit off a shared resource and in the process they are having a negative impact on that resource. I don't think he did a very good job articulating that at the outset of everything.