I am not the original commenter. This comment asking "why" was before the OP commenter "both-sides" the genocide with "muh khamas".

At the time, OP commenter was just talking about Israeli spyware using BDS as a source while also letting us know they are uninformed about the genocide and thus don't have a stance. My understanding was that this was to deflect any criticism or accusations from Zionists for being biased.

While it is not ideal, there are a million reasons why someone may be ignorant on a conflict, atrocity, phenomenon, etc. It could be willfull ignorance, it could be that their environment does everything possible to keep them ignorant; regardless, until I know the reason, I cannot judge them.

What matters to me more is how they act with said ignorance. In this case, they initially said they are very poorly informed aka "I don't know". Instead of talking about what they don't know (genocide, settler-colonial conflict, Zionism, etc), they only spoke about what they do know (Israeli spyware).

I think this is fine, especially since those who know they are ignorant and refuse to speak on what they don't know are generally open to learn or have any misconceptions corrected. I also have very low expectations of Amerikkkans from the land of the burger, home of the fries.

This all is to say, this is why I was asking "why". My mind was focused on the spyware, and I was wondering why another commenter didn't like it. Was the information inaccurate?

Since then, a lot of other commenters responded--I now understand why they take issue with the OP comment, though I believed the initial responses were unnecessarily harsh. However, the OP commenter, despite knowing full well their ignorance, dropped the "muh khamas" shitter nuke, so...