I personally think that DMCA was terribly designed - but a replacement would need careful consideration from all sides.
As to chilling effect on reporters, I disagree.
We have laws to protect people from libel, and yet it does not have chilling effect on reporters. And yet it is essentially exactly the same thing I am thinking about.
The damage from libel is to an individual. The damage from misinformation is to entire society.
The reason libel laws work is that the number of cases isn't overwhelming the court system.
But if you rewind time 20 years and you suspended libel law for a moment, if everybody could publish in a newspaper or TV whatever they want about whoever they want. What do you think would happen? A deluge of false information about everybody.
What would people say about somebody wanting to introduce a libel law? That "it would have a chilling effect on journalism".
The reason for frivolous lawsuits, DMCA takedowns, rape accusations, fake news and internet misinformation is that people feel no practical consequences for false reporting.
If you are caught with a blatantly false report you should be faced with a stiff penalty.
The penalty should be just enough so that normal people feel twice before false reporting. This should discourage 99.9% people from false reporting and then allow authorities to assign adequate resources to deal with the rest 0.1%.