I remember years ago when Gary Glitter was convicted, Paul Gambaccini commented that the difference between Michael Jackson (then still alive) and Garry Glitter was conviction and extent of talent, influence and musical back catalogue.
Gary Glitter can be ignored from musical history with little gap and generally has been. Michael Jackson's work has been a strong influence on generations of artists since. That's harder to strategically ignore. Play of his music did significantly quieten down in his life and the allegations did impact his career and royalties, despite the murky legal processes, it wasn't consequence-free. For many, his death did "liberate" some of the conflict between the life of the artist and the musical output. Well until the Netflix allegations, but he wasn't alive to answer to that. It's fair to say that money corrupted justice in one way or another.
The other fairly distinctive thing about Michael Jackson is that many remember him as an innocent young child. Do you cancel his work as a child? By default cancel family members who may have condoned their brother or had nothing do do with his alledged actions? He's not profiting from beyond the grave. There are many shades of grey where people can choose to draw their line.
As to other artists underage shenanigans with fans, at that point in time, it was considered consensual; we are better at recognising the vulnerability of teenagers now. Teenage lives have changed and they reach adult milestones later and are less independent now.
Many people draw the line where laws were broken and proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Dredging up Gary Glitter's back catalogue for soundtracks and introducing to younger generations is pretty distasteful to most, and few will want to hear it in venues like Spin. Unconvicted artists, becomes far more ambiguous.