Maybe negative citations could be categorized separately by the authors and not count towards the cited paper's citation count and be ignored for cascading citations.
If the citation doesn't materially affect the paper, the author can re-publish it with that removed.
This paper is 22 years old. Some authors have retired. Some are dead.
I really think that at the very least it needs a quick sniff test. Which is boring uninteresting work and with 4,500 citations that will take some effort, but that's why we pay the journals big bucks. Otherwise it's just going to be the academic variant of the Scunthorpe problem.
And/or do something more fine-grained than a binary retraction, such as adding in a clear warning that a citation was retracted and telling readers to double-check that citation specifically.
So now if you want to cite come paper you have to decide which papers you'd die and live with, and consequently your paper prestige will be dependent on how many other papers want to die and live with yours.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow
although the incentives will be more confusing.
There's an argument to be made that citing something to disagree with it should increase its prestige but not its credibility (to the extent that those can be separated): you're agreeing that it's important.
I don't think "number of citations" typically make this distinction?
Also for some papers the citation doesn't really matter, and you can exclude the entire thing without really affecting the paper.
Regardless, this seems like a nice idea on the face of it, but practically I foresee a lot of potential problems if done "non-negotiably".