This is about giving the accuser the benefit of the doubt. It's not a matter of "guilty until proven innocent" - at this point it's no more complicated than "WTF Joe. Explain yourself." It's natural that some people have a stronger reaction than that, because they've witnessed this kind of thing countless times before.
As an intelligent, logical person, you understand that the accuser has absolutely nothing to gain from sharing their experience and saying "Be wary of this person" while we as consumers and potential industry acquaintances have everything to gain. We need to learn from these stories and foster an environment where women feel safer, and where eyes are on people who have the potential to do enormous harm.
I don't give a fuck about Joe. I enjoyed some of his videos, but he's just a celebrity; an internet personality. He obviously made some poor decisions and he can deal with those and accept responsibility as a regular human should.
Believe it or not you can give someone the benefit of the doubt while reserving final judgement. I understand that statistically she is more likely to be telling the truth than not, but to act like people never accuse people of crazy ass shit that never even happened, is crazy to me. No one should be convicted and sentenced without hearing from both sides. Like I said, statistics make it more likely that Joe is indeed a scumbag. But regardless of that fact, I still choose to wait for final judgement, and that isn't unfair or unsympathetic to either side.