You're not listening to what I'm asking. What kind of "hard evidence" do you want. Do I need data from polls? Do I need to survey every single D&D fan and show that most people hate metaplots? Do I need financial data from WotC that proves that metaplot eventually makes settings unprofitable?
I'm not going to list every possible way to come up with hard evidence. I don't need you to go out and manufacture evidence.
You made the claim of objectivity, therefore should have hard evidence to support that claim. What is the hard evidence you are basing your claim of objectivity on?
What goose chase do you want to send me on?
I have no interest in sending you on a chase. You've said that you're using anecdotal experiences from Reddit which is your subjective experience based on what you have seen. The toxicity you saw was based on the subjective experiences of a number of posters. That evidence is not objective, it's subjective. Subjective + subjective =/= objective.
All I want to know is what objective evidence you used to come up with your claim. If it's none, that's okay. But no objective evidence means that your claim of objectivity in serious doubt.
I'd argue that the controversy around all of those topics proves that some works needs to be done. I'm also of the opinion that alignment is bad for the game and that the community would be better off without it.
And I'd argue that no matter what you do, people aren't going to like it and there will be a subset of those people who are toxic and will go online to spew it. Right now there are multiple millions of D&D players. A sliver of a sliver of multiple millions is still a huge number of people spewing toxicity, but that doesn't mean that anything needs to change or that what the toxic people are complaining about is bad.
It's similar to gun violence. You'd think from the news talking about mass shooting after mass shooting after mass shooting with assault rifles, that most gun deaths are caused by mass shootings using assault rifles. In fact, mass shooting deaths are dwarfed by the number of handgun deaths, but those don't get talked about. You see a lot of the former, so it misleads people into thinking that that assault rifles are the primary problem.
We can't base a conclusion off of the numbers of complainers and/or toxic people that we see online, because those numbers don't give us the bigger picture. It may be that most people or even a vast majority dislike metaplots. Or it may be that most people or a vast majority like them. We can't know with any objectivity from what we see online which it is, or even if it is a majority and not even.