Leaked data reveals Israeli govt campaign to remove pro-Palestine posts on Meta

This is a really hard problem. Just consider that there are ~150 Muslims for every Jew worldwide. In the USA it's the reverse - 2:1 in favor of Jews, concentrated in particular geographic areas.

Imagine what it means to get ranking right here - if you let just 1% of the international population into the USA ranking system, you have a majority in favor of Palestine, and of course these ideas will spread in communities without a lot of people who can represent Jewish history. It's clear to me why this happens, but fixing in an algorithmic but fair way is also extremely difficult.

I think there's an erroneous implicit assumption in your reasoning, namely that to be Zionist is equivalent to be Jewish, and to be anti-zionist is to be Muslim (otherwise, why would you be talking about Jew:Muslim ratios). The fact of the matter is that not every Zionist* is Jewish (in fact, the vast majority of Zionists are christian), and vice versa not every Jewish person is a Zionist (Jewish voice for peace, the ultra orthodox, etc).

But even beyond that, I think engaging in censorship to hide an ethnic cleansing is an affront to humanity.

* Here, I'm taking Zionism to mean to be in support of the way Israel has formed and continued to form in the past 77 or so years. I am aware that there are many different interpretations of Zionism (to illustrate the breadth; Noam Chomsky considered himself a Zionist), but this particular interpretation is the one that is relevant to this conversation.

The pager attack indiscruminantly attacked healthcare workers and killed a 9 year old girl and another child. It was the definition of untargeted, immoral and unprofessional. How does eliminating over 3% of a population, of which the majority are women and children amount to anything but deliberate extermination? There is nothing defensive about the IOF, or the army which calls palestinian citizens "human animals" and says "no child is too young to be a terorist"

There is nothing indiscriminate about attacking Hizbollah pagers. There is however something indiscriminate about attacking civilians like on Oct 7. Targeting civilians as a matter of fact. Even if someone called them "animals" it's hardly equivalent to women being raped and having their breasts cut off, and being stabbed while being raped. That would be "treating" people like animals. Let's not forget who launched this whole war. Hamas.

You're right, attacking civilians is bad. So what does it say about a nation when it kills at least fifty thousand? (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...)

Again, you are not differentiating between targeting and collateral damage. Hamas broke a ceasefire and targeted civilians. Israel went in to destroy Hamas with the unfortunate result of civilians dying as collateral damage. When you say 50k, there are several problems. For starters you are quoting the Gaza Health Ministry which is Hamas and is provably unreliable. On top of that about 40% of those are Hamas fighters, which you are failing to differentiate between. If you take the time to look at urban warfare statistics, you can see that the IDF has put more effort into preserving civilians than any other army. If you don't believe me just reference John Spencer who is the head (and founder I believe) or urban warfare studies at West Point. You're also ignoring the biggest point, which is that Hamas attacked Israel, which pulls Israel into a war they did not want. During the ceasefire, why was there not a push for peace by Hamas? Why did they think murdering innocents, raping teenagers at a music festival, and kidnapping families and babies is the right course of action? It's amazing to me you are defending this in even the most remote sense? Why did Gaza not build itself into a productive economy and instead elect Hamas, a totalitarian religious regime into power? It's a ridiculous argument to even begin to try and make excuses for this.