MB's tweet wasn't great, to be honest, and if you (for instance) had taken it as your starting point to think through all the implications of the Oxfam situation (which is, I think, the tip of a nasty iceberg re. Aid/NGOs around the world and abusive men in various organisations) it would actually have hindered your ability to think through the situation. It didn't, really, offer any real tools for thinking. In fact, I'd go as far as to say it was actually something that would close the door on thinking.
That said, MB is a feminist Classics scholar, who has achieved some prominence because she shows common-sense on a variety of issues, some of which are beyond the field in which she is an expert. That's great, she's clearly an ally. However, quite why you might think, even expect, her to be an expert in a field not related to her own area of expertise, I don;t know. She's not someone I'd go to for insight and 'tools for thinking about' this particular issue.
In some ways, I think the twitter-storm is a bit inappropriate - as though she is an expert here. She really isn't. She's almost certainly going to have an opinion that hasn't acquired depth, knowledge and nuance. Some of the outrage seems to be surprise (why? 
) and some of it seems to be some sense of betrayal (as though she has been over-invested with a prophet-like status by people who have seen her as a 'go-to' figure when they need a short-cut for thinking about difficult issues).
Some of the outrage is from women who have spent years thinking about these issues, who have probably written papers, books, PhDs, articles - and been met with silence and (bored) indifference. I can imagine the incredible frustration - the 'innocence' comes from a position of not having to become informed. It is a form of privilege. And, of course, it kind of mirrors the silencing of those who have worked damn hard to get the information out there, into the mainstream.
That said, I'm really fed up with the spectacle of women carrying the can for this.
There's so much to be said about this whole story. Catherine Bennet has written a very good article about what it tells us about attitudes to sex, the sex trade and progressive politics.
I think there is a lot to be explored about how abusive men inevitably gravitate to areas where the ability to abuse is made easier for them - and how this becomes a culture that tolerates abuse - and what that means for all the women involved.
For myself, I'm actually trying to process what I think about 'open secrets'. I remember a friend writing an article that touched on this years ago (about twenty years ago) - it looked at the link between 'aid' and AIDS, and NGOS, Aid organisations, etc, and the (inherently) abusive sexual relations that sprang up when those organisations moved into areas.
It was considered 'old news' then. No-one seemed to care. I'm really wondering how 'open secrets' serve to silence subaltern and feminist discourses that seek to argue back against 'common knowledge' and abusive, though widespread, practices.
I think MB was probably at the beginning of her thinking on this issue. Twitter might not have been the best place to start. I think the response has been disproportionate. I hope that people are going to use it productively, and look up some new (to them, maybe) voices. I suspect it won't happen, though.
There, surely, should be some way of accepting that individual feminist women aren't going to be 'right' about everything and interacting in a way that isn;t completely destructive, and to recognise that, sometimes, we occupy positions of privilege and that may obscure our knowledge, but doesn't necessarily make us wholeheartedly 'bad'. Political purity is a very damaging notion.
My thinking on this is still developing, and is fluid. I'm posting, in part, to learn and listen.
Social media is also very new. Perhaps we're still developing our thinking about the ethics of communication in social media.