As the recipient of a SLAPP lawsuit (~decade ago) for truth I published online, the biggest problem with Anti-SLAPP statutes is that laypeople (particularly poorer ones) have limited access to attorney representation... the judicial system isn't accessible/friendly to the pro se litigant.
So even if the case is clearly being used to strategicly silence you, it'll probably still work (from plaintiff's POV). Same for DMCA.
With a strong Anti-SLAPP statute, the person who files the lawsuit is on the hook for the defendant's legal fees, which would (in theory) let the defendant hire an attorney on contigency fees.
Of course, one of the other issues is there's no federal Anti-SLAPP statute, and circuits are split as to whether or not state Anti-SLAPP applies to federal lawsuits, so if someone can diversity jurisdiction you into a federal SLAPP lawsuit, you're kind of stuck.
>which would (in theory) let the defendant hire an attorney on contigency fees
You'd better have a slam-dunk of a case if you're going to easily find contingency lawyers. The worst thing you can be is just "too rich" to qualify for pro bono representation... but even then, you still need a slam-dunk case.
I am currently in the process of suing somebody (plaintiff), for the first time in my many decades, and am a semi-retired electrician of average savings... and it is expensive and probably not worth my time but (in theory) hopefully worth it on principle.
So ready for this to be over with; the lawyers will certainly get their$.
"if someone can diversity jurisdiction you into a federal SLAPP lawsuit"
Sounds like a CivPro hypothetical exam question that would give law students nightmares.