I think you are trying to reinvent law. I think all or at least most of these points have decent answers in a society with working rule of law. Granted, social media makes things more complicated, but the general dynamics are not new.
In ideal case we would like to have something better than law, because currently the law mostly works for people who have approximately the same amount of resources they can spend on law.
If you have lots of money for lawyers, you can threaten people so they will be silent even if you hurt them. If you have lots of money for lawyers, you can say anything you want about anyone with less money than you, and then let the lawyers solve the problem. The easiest strategy is to drag out the lawsuit indefinitely until the other side burns all their resources, then offer them a settlement they cannot refuse (a part of the settlement is them publicly admitting that they were wrong, even if factually they were not).
Law optimizes for a stable society, not for truth. Siding with the rich is a part of that goal.
If you have lots of money for lawyers, you can threaten people
That doesn’t sound like proper rule of law, and indeed, the US is abysmal in that area specifically. Not that the US would be a paragon of rule of law overall.
I think you are trying to reinvent law. I think all or at least most of these points have decent answers in a society with working rule of law. Granted, social media makes things more complicated, but the general dynamics are not new.
In ideal case we would like to have something better than law, because currently the law mostly works for people who have approximately the same amount of resources they can spend on law.
If you have lots of money for lawyers, you can threaten people so they will be silent even if you hurt them. If you have lots of money for lawyers, you can say anything you want about anyone with less money than you, and then let the lawyers solve the problem. The easiest strategy is to drag out the lawsuit indefinitely until the other side burns all their resources, then offer them a settlement they cannot refuse (a part of the settlement is them publicly admitting that they were wrong, even if factually they were not).
Law optimizes for a stable society, not for truth. Siding with the rich is a part of that goal.
That doesn’t sound like proper rule of law, and indeed, the US is abysmal in that area specifically. Not that the US would be a paragon of rule of law overall.
Source:
https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/country/2023/United%20States/Civil%20Justice/
Maybe that is why people resort to alternate ways of dispute resolution...
Can one of the disagreers explain their reasoning?