Taking it a little further:

Here are some other considerations that I think are relevant to the Facebook post on 4/18/22 on conflict resolution:
 

Difference between being sinned against and being offended.
Difference between being sinned against and having your feelings hurt.
Difference between being sinned against and being irritated by someone.
Only way this works is if the two or three are themselves in good standing.
Only time this is applied is when someone stubbornly refuses to accept that they just might be in the wrong, and there are two or three against them.
Note that there is no provision for the offender to have witnesses of his own.  It's just him.
Note that the offended person chooses his own witnesses.
There is a lot here in conflict with our American way of establishing guilt.  Why would that surprise us at all?
This seems designed to elicit a lot of apologies from the possibly guilty.  
This seems designed to give everyone practice in humility.
This seems designed to raise the bar very high on how brothers treat each other.  

The US Justice system is not designed with anything like this in mind.  We rebel a bit at the implications of Jesus' procedure because it would make us far more subject to correction than our criminal justice system does.  But...wouldn't that be a good motivator for treating everyone the same?  For treating everyone as a brother?  Jesus is not proposing a civil justice system, he is laying the groundwork for an effective church.