Even if what you said is true, would you be willing to spend the money to go to court and try to fight a defamation lawsuit?
Second, defamation suits are public, and often make for juicy headlines. If you really want to silence your critics, dragging them into a public forum to repeat their claims in front of a load of reporters is probably not the best way to do it.
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/...
Your comment seems to fit the profile of Brewdog, a UK based 'craft brewery'. They are known for deliberately courting controversy. The egregious examples include frivolous claims on trademarks, misogyny, bullying, harassment, amongst toe-curling and churlish behaviour, when they appeared on a BBC programme Who's The Boss. The latest 'Gold Can' escapade is another deceptive marketing campaign, which is their raison d'être. The strategy works, as it is doing them no harm and the growth is phenomenal.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jun/10/brewdog-pun...
https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2016/03/brewdog-boss-regre...
You seem to be accusing the person you are responding to of being Brewdog? Or were you trying to say Brewdog uses defamation to silence criticism of their marketing tactics? Or are you trying to promote Brewdog by publicising their deliberate controversies? I just can't figure it out.
There is no such implication on both counts. I am flabbergasted by how you have arrived at your conclusion.
I presume you had a point you were trying to make, but i could not figure out what it was from your comment as written.
I.e. they were suggesting that brewdog, uh, deliberately invites criticism, and then uses that criticism to their advantage by using defamation law.
Court and lawyer support should be free or cheap.
Else you have a bigger problem than "defamation is a great way for those with money to silence dissent and avoid any consequences": all kinds of lawsuits being "a great way for those with money to silence dissent and avoid any consequences".
In an ideal society, a huge corporation and an average Joe should have the same legal representation, quality wise. Of course this means destroying our present norms of elite law firms and bad free counselling assigned by court. Have lawyers on pool as a state service and assign them randomly to cases on either side.