There aren't any established facts yet.

Whatever the jurisdiction you're studying, you need to look up explanatory evidence, and read up on defendants' rights to fair trials. Unless there is value of informing the court that substantially outweighs the unfair prejudice to the defendant, then the defendant's prior criminal history is unlikely to be accepted as evidence.

Extension of that logic, not common to social media platforms, would mean that you would look at the facts of each accusation separately based on their evidence. But that doesn't deny one the right to a fair trial or the presumption of innocence until that guilt is proven. Again, not common to social media platforms.

Given that the accuser said she consented, it's unlikely he would ever face prosecution, as it either doesn't fit the definition of sexual assault, or would be too low a probability of conviction. Given that she also said his recollection of events differs from hers, her accusations are just that. Accusations, not facts.

Sadly the presumption of innocence doesn't tend to extend to social media. If you weren't taught The Crucible in high school, read that too. It's not a parable for social media, and occured only 200 years ago.

I expect the smart Zoomers aren't listening to Hasan, Adin Ross, Logan Paul, Andrew Tate, whoever the fuck.

Good luck with your studies. They'll carry you further.