Not really, no. Are you aware of the sort of misinformation campaigns that have been used throughout history? I'm not going to claim that MeToo is such a campaign, but given the effectiveness of manipulating social media to suit political or commercial goals in recent years, it would not shock me in the slightest. The means are there. Astroturfing, dogpiling, phishing, doxxing, all sorts of ugly, high-charisma social strategies are vying for attention and momentum in society. It's fair to say "there's something going on", but I'm not inclined to blindly go along with it or agree with what that "something" is.
To assume one way or the other is reaching a conclusion with insufficient evidence. Additionally, it's not logically sound to assume "because X% of these claims were credible, the rest are, too." Each incident should be handled in its own context, not by "virtue" of sheer volume. MeToo appears to be about standing up and raising "awareness". What good does that awareness do? If we want to help these women, they need to be in touch with legal aid, not cheerleaders and echo chambers on social media. These social campaigns also have a chilling effect on the out group; in this case, men who do not wish to be seen as a threat. For this reason, some men refuse to be alone with women in their professional life. Is that fair to men? Is it fair to women? Nobody benefits from this except the rabble rousers. Why should a man automatically be assumed to be guilty of certain crimes? Why should a woman need a second man or woman with her in a room in order for her male colleague to feel comfortable around her?
I do not trust our justice system. It has many flaws, but it's really all we have to properly deal with crime that approaches anything resembling "fair". Sexual abuse is a crime, so it should be dealt with accordingly. That means the accused has the right to face their accuser and is entitled to a fair trial by a jury of their peers. At least in America...
The alternative is what we see on social media: a mob of people who are more interested in vengeance than they are public safety or the integrity of justice as a concept. The Code of Hammurabi is thousands of years old, and we ought to be better than that by now. This is why we're supposed to choose people who will act and decide in impartial, reasonable, and humane ways when dealing with criminals. The public mob is not suited for the job.
I suspect we'll agree that choosing the right people to deal with these cases is difficult, but that's true of any government office, tbh.