I can't speak for anyone else but for me, articles about these types of scandals all read pretty much the same, and I'm starting to wonder if they're being written in a way that makes it seem like an impossible problem to solve.

This part in particular illustrates what I'm talking about:

Again and again, when allegations of abuse arise within the industry, an iteration of the same defense is repeated: She didn’t say anything. She didn’t speak up. I can’t read minds. Concerns raised by accusers around insufficient pre-scene boundary negotiations are ignored, as are the complex power dynamics that make speaking up difficult. The anxieties performers may have about long-term career consequences and the material need for a paycheck are also ignored, positioning the “speak up” defense as an uncomplicated matter of personal responsibility.

This idea has become persistent despite the fact that experts say freezing is a common response to sexual assault. It effectively casts mounting claims of sexual misconduct within the industry as discrete personal failures on the part of accusers, as opposed to a systemic problem.

So the message here is clearly "miscommunications are not the root of the problem, the root of the problem are systemic in the industry."

But then the article never elaborates on what those systemic problems are, or what any proposed solutions or reform might be. Instead, it focuses on the specific details of the allegation, which are horrifying and upsetting, and the defense, which we were just told to ignore.

So at the end of the article I feel disgusted and outraged by the allegation, and I've been told not to believe the accused's response, but I have no idea what the path forward might be or what kind of solutions are possible. For example: why this can't be solved by something as simple as basic "safe word" etiquette? That's probably a stupid question, but the writer hasn't answered it.