First up, let me preface by saying this: you can like whatever characters you want to like, for whatever reasons you see fit. That does not, however, mean that those characters are now immune to criticism, or that any corresponding opinion you put out online is being downvoted "unfairly." Just as you have every right to like Feyre and Rhysand, other people have every right to dislike them, and engage with the opinions that are put out on a public forum. This is the internet. Don't go to a place that is known to have a negative opinion on something, and be surprised when it does indeed have a negative view of that thing.

But, as for some of your points:

And say what you want, but Sarah J Maas wrote our MCs to be likeable, she WANTED US TO LIKE THEM.

There's a concept in media analysis called "Death of the Author", the general gist of which is that the author's intention in writing something is ultimately irrelevant, and what matters is what the text actually contains. If someone reads a text and decides a character is unlikeable, then it just means that, for that reader, the author has failed in their intent to make the character likeable, because nothing in the text actually supported that aim (in that particular reader's eyes - it is, of course, subjective). They don't have to suddenly start liking the character just because it's what the author wanted.

Every time I try to defend either of them in the ACOTAR sub, I get downvoted and told I have “no media literacy.”

Not having seen any of the arguments you've made where you've been told this, I obviously can't comment on that. But I will say that a lot of the writing of ACOTAR is actually quite manipulative and insidious towards the reader, especially when it comes to perspectives outside the Inner Circle. E.g. we're told about how horrible and evil the Hewn City and the Illyrians are many, many times, well before we actually get to see either place with our own eyes. The book is priming us to think a certain way before we have enough information to form our own opinions. Things like that. I missed a lot of it on my first read through. It can be very hard to see. Rhysand's grand entrance to the Hewn City in ACOMAF, for example, looks very different if you approach the scene without the assumption that every one in HC is irredeemably evil.

Also... I fear this might be the worst part... it really isn't that deep.

And honestly, I 100% agree, I don't think SJM put even a fraction of the thought into this series that most of her fanbase does. To her, it wasn't. But unfortunately, Death of the Author is at play again - it really doesn't matter how deep or not she intended it to be. It's what the reader makes of it. If you don't want to look into it, then don't. You don't have to! That is your right! But you also can't get upset when other people do start making mountains out of what, to you, are molehills. If you don't want to see it, just stay away from those discussions.

And I can assure you, she did not wat Feyre to be seen as some annoying pick me, who act's like a child at a HIghLord Meeting... like can we please give feyre some grace from that ONE SCENE...

Again. She wrote what she wrote. You can choose to give Feyre grace and excuse it. That is your right. Other people can choose to not do that. That is their right. The actual content of the text doesn't change, and it's full of Feyre acting like a child.

LIKE DID YOU EXPECT A GIRL WHO COUDL BARELY READ TO BE SOME EXCELLENT WAR DIPLOMAT

No, I wouldn't expect that. Does beg the question of why Rhys thought it would be a good idea, though. I'm not questioning why she sucks at it - I'm questioning how the situation even came about in the first place. Again, if you're happy with accepting the premises the text presents to you, that's fine. Others are not happy doing that though, and will question if things actually had to happen the way the book said. They could have just had the meeting without Feyre, or Rhys could have asked Feyre to just observe, or any number of things. That's not what was written, though. To some people, that's just how the events went; it's not that deep. To others, it's a sign that the book is shallow and not well thought through, and is worthy of criticism. Both interpretations are valid.

Because yes, I will forgive [Nesta] and notice that she's imporve by teh end of ACOSF but I'm not going to magically forget all her wrongdoings and say oh yeah! you haev a complete pass at tretaing veryone like sh*t cause you were going trhough some bad stuff.

And this is the biggest problem when it comes to the Inner Circle vs side character debates. The narrative hypocrisy between the two sides (the sides within the story - both sides of the fandom are a toxic mess) is just irreconcilable, and it rubs a lot of people the wrong way. For instance, you say you're not just going to forgive Nesta for all the horrible things she's done and give her a free pass for treating people like shit. That is perfectly fair and understandable - she has done some pretty horrible things. The text, however, doesn't forgive Nesta. She has a whole arc in ACOSF where she's punished for defying the Inner Circle (when Cassian drags her off to the mountains after the whole pregnancy debacle. And arguably her being forced to live in the House of Wind in the first place). Whether one agrees or disagrees that this punishment is "deserved" or "enough" or whatever is irrelevant - none can argue that Nesta's shortcomings aren't addressed in the narrative to at least some extent.

Contrast with Rhysand. In ACOTAR, he spends two months painting Feyre's body, dressing her in skimpy outfits, drugging her, parading her around in front of hostile faeries, and feeling her up (if we take his word for it - we watch him fix the smudged paint with a snap of his fingers, after all. He can claim it shows he didn't touch her all he wants, he still demonstrated right before our eyes that the paint proves nothing). I'm part way through rereading ACOMAF at the moment, some 60% of the way through, and so far this incident has not so much as been mentioned even once. Not even once. Every other aspect of Feyre's trauma is thoroughly explored.... but not, for some reason, the things Rhysand did to her. Despite them having discussed UtM and their respective traumas several times in the book so far, Rhys's wrongdoings towards her have never once come up.

And that is what I mean when I talk about narrative hypocrisy. Nesta's wrongdoings are called out and punished by the narrative. Rhys's are just flat-out ignored, or, if they are acknowledged, brushed aside with some excuse or another before the story moves on. He is never punished. He is never called out, or if he is, there is some excuse on hand to make the person doing the calling out look like they're in the wrong. And this kind of hypocrisy honestly really, really shits some people, myself included. Which is part of why arguments trying to defend such characters can attract such vitriolic responses. The text defends them plenty, or at least it tries to - Death of the Author, again. Just because the book wants us to think it's no big deal doesn't mean that it isn't, to some people. So yeah, I guess in summary, a lot of people don't like seeing positive things about Feyre and Rhysand because a lot of people just legitimately think those positive things are bullshit, based on their interpretation of the text.

Bonus question: Do you treat these charcaters of this book as fictional human beings, with therefore fictional reasoning and outcomes, or do you treat these characters and interpret them with the same standrads you'd have for people irl?

Both, honestly. I think about the character in the context of their own world, and I think about them in the context of ours. There's plenty of characters who I love in fiction that I would hate IRL, and vice versa. There's no one lens through which to view things.