You can't see a laser transmission off-axis if there aren't any stray photons reaching your detector - that's just physics.
You can't detect a radio signal below the noise floor without some a priori knowledge about the statistics of the signal.
These aren't justifications, these are simply facts about the current limits of our ability to detect far-away signals. These limits suggest that millions of far-away worlds could be extremely chatty between themselves, but unless they decided to point a transmitter at us, we would be none the wiser.
You shouldn't use a measurement that looks identical for case A and case B to decide which one is more likely.
Imagine if we had thousands of microsats in orbit around the various planets that we could triangulate data amongst? We need to be more aware of our solar system before we can even make reasoned arguments about life within it alone.
That's an excellent point, for all we know we have intelligent, non-spacefaring life right in our solar system. It's unlikely, but there's still plenty of oceans, gas giant atmospheres and lava tubes that we haven't looked at yet.
So, question: how strong does an undirected, random signal need to be to be reasonably detected at 10 light years away?
We already know neutrinos can travel through most mass, so modulating those would let you transmit through the Earth and Sun with lower latency and without a repeater constellation routing around the object.
Whatever aliens might be using to transmit information is likely more advanced than we're able to detect.
But a simpler explanation that has many more paths to being true is "there's nothing out there."
To be clear, I don't think the evidence suggests near-certainty here. I wouldn't say that there's a 99% chance that we're alone in the galaxy. But it's also not a wide open field. There is some evidence, and so far that evidence suggests that we're likely alone.
Alien life forms wouldn't need to use technology to make themselves harder to detect. It's extremely difficult by default.
They would need to use technology to deliberately spread a message in a way that is at all likely to be detectable, and even then would still have to get quite lucky.
Maybe they have?
We don't "contact" every pack of deer that we notice.
It is not that humans are technologically primitive (which we are), it might be we are too intellectually/capacity primitive to be seen as "contact" worthy.
And if there are all these technological species, we would expect some of them to be much more advanced than we are. Why haven't some of them noticed us?
You can come up with possible answers to these questions, it's just that those answers look less likely than, "those species aren't actually out there."