@Anonymous
A civilised society is based on rules. Where you might not agree to them as your opinion might be based, that doesn't make your opinion acceptable in the wider society.
There is no pre-emptive case. Where rules exist and agreements are made there can be only one acceptable outcome. Normally, this is supervised by an impartial party who evaluates the evidence and then forms a judgement. It is then that the issue is solved and ended. This is not then needing to be re-evaluated by multiple individuals based on review information that cannot even factually mention some transgressions, the likes of drugs, smoking, sex and bodily functions immediately come to mind - you mentioned - from a recent thread, even where some of these were confirmed occurring by a third party.
https://community.withairbnb.com/t5/Hosting/Help-before-I-post-a-negative-review/td-p/1104176
Judgements based on evidence result in consequences.
Asking for a change to an existing skewed review process as here as @Raquel24 suggests would be a great start to fix the system.
Review problems here are not based on rules and agreements and "Content Policy" like they should be, instead they're based on "Help articles" which are skewed watered down versions of Terms which are ACTUALLY the terms which all members agreed to adhere to as well as a restriction on not ACTUALLY mentioning any transgression! Skewing the terms and oppressing hosts in this way only provides an environment in which undesirables can exist and thrive without those consequences a civilised society would normally impose.
1 in 146 retaliatory reviews is still one too many (if that was to be the case) as in @Raquel24 case, but that 1 retaliatory review in 2 would be catastrophic. Neither are would justify the review in the first place. Sucking it up is just not good enough.