Seems there's two opinions here...
1) Stoya made a claim and the guy should be charged. It almost appears as if making a claim on twitter is sufficient to imply guilty beyond any doubt, let alone reasonable doubt. He's guilty... because someone said so. That's a dangerous precedent to take but understandable in the context.
2) Stoya has made a claim, it needs to be investigated and the guy tried in a court of law; there's due diligence in the legal system and people aren't just guilty because someone said so. They're guilty as they're proven so.
Those who agree with (1) seem to attack people who offer up (2) as what should happen. That's not going to actually make a difference...
Those who state (2) as the correct avenue are, actually, right. The reason (1) attack the opinion of (2) is that they have no faith in the legal system. That is their actual concern. Shouldn't be arguing between the two over what's "right".
The inadequacy of the legal system needs challenging and addressing. Saying there's hundreds of thousands of non reported sexual assaults doesn't mean you shouldn't report sexual assaults. It highlights the problem it currently faces. However, all crimes need to be catalogued as then statistical evidence further reinforces where the issues lay and means to address this put forward. If you don't pursue (2) and just go with (1) then nothing is ever ever ever going to change..
Reporting crime needs to be improved, which means the treatment of victims needs to be improved. Then the massive discrepancies surrounding it (conviction rates) can be challenged, people educated, and maybe a change started. Whilst naming someone in a tweet as being guilty of an incredibly serious crime isn't (in my opinion) the right way to address things, it may also be how things start (sadly). Why? Because if there are more victims currently, they may now come forward.
Forget Cosby, he's small time. Read about Jimmy Saville in the UK. Only once people started coming forward after his death did an incredibly awful history of abuse of children appear - and the scale is utterly repulsive. This highlighted horrific oversight and treatment of victims. Truly horrific - people suspected but never did anything because he was "famous".
Arising from all this - more people are being arrested and jailed for historic sex crimes. They're found guilty without any physical evidence (as it happened decades before) but due to the volume of victim testimonies which have high levels of correlation in the stories.
The really awful thing is that if the people who were victims believed they'd be believed/treated as they should have been, then it could have been stopped decades earlier. So many victims would have not been victims - but the treatment of victims has been appalling. HOPEFULLY this is changing for the better, though conviction rates remain difficult...
There are always going to be victims of any crime - including sexual assaults. What needs to be addressed is how allegations are treated. If the victims have the belief they'll be treated right and possible crimes investigated, then changes can happen. That removes the empowerment of the attackers... if they believe there will be criminal proceedings, they may behave differently and there may never be a victim.
Sadly, avoiding reporting crimes isn't going to make any difference whatsoever - they need to be reported in order to force a change in attitudes and behaviours by recognising that currently they're woefully inadequate bordering on useless.
Is the guy guilty or not? No idea. Could this be yet another missed opportunity to try and create a debate surrounding how badly such crimes are treated and cause a change? Yes (no idea how the debate goes in the US).
Is turning on people who state how victims/accused should be treated helping? Not really.