Anything to do with goodreads becomes toxic. I think that's because the types of people who read and opine about books to the extent they feel compelled to blog/review on gr, are also likely to be the types of people who brook no dissent to their opinions, neither of authors, books nor the things they make them mean. They're independent, self-trusting, artistic thinkers (in the manner of Nietzsche), and the act of engaging in bookreading, where they are in their own closeted little world, alone with the author's mind, is the pinnacle of their innate joy, but the internet of everyman wasn't built for them, so they become little despots when faced with a sea of divergence.

The comment above is an example of a hanger-on to this dynamic: not quite independent enough to be a despot in their own right, but an enabler of the despotism of these little opiners, who the userbase of goodreads epitomizes so well, leading to the toxicity oozing from the seams of goodreads observable in abundance.