I find it fascinating that they're out for blood when it comes to Tyson and Nye, but they ignore the rapist in the whitehouse...

He's more than just "a bit of a lolcow". He discredits science by being an arsehole and inserting science into places it obviously does not belong. He's the epitome of that stereotypical "STEM bro" that looks down upon the arts and humanities. Here's one anecdote about him I found:

Just saw a clip of his on Instagram about whether "fahrenheit units are better for the weather" as opposed to Celsius.

He starts off with "well, the weather doesn't care about how we measure it. It just is what it is, regardless of our units. What you mean is that fahrenheit makes it easy for us to understand the weather..." And then goes on to discuss it.

Like... Fuck off man. Everyone knows what the person meant, and he's just being a smartass about it.

He's also gone on "proving" that Santa can't be real with real physics. That's not stuff that makes people interested in science. It's just dickish and does exactly the opposite.

Here's an anecdote from someone who admits to overall liking him:

I still listen to [his podcast], but I'm gonna spoil it to you: just listen how often he interrupts people. Every question being asked he needs do change or add something and then "complains" that the section or question takes too long.

There's also a clip with Joe Rogan where he's not even listening but just rambles on, and keep interrupting.

And finally, I get annoyed by his words of wisdoms where he's recycling the same sentences in his genius complex voice.

The claim there is that this is just one "side" of NDT and that his "real" side, when it's allowed to show through, is a much better communicator of the wonder of science. My take is that we don't get to see this "authentic" version of him nearly often enough to give him credit for it.

He has that bad habit that a lot of smart people (particularly physicists, for some reason) have, which is to think that because they're smart in their one area, they must also be smart in others. He is certainly nowhere near as bad as some (looking at you, Sabine Hossenfelder), but he does have a nasty habit particularly when talking about the history of science (which, first and foremost, is history). One point that he's particularly fond of (having repeated it regularly online as well as including it in his Cosmos remake) is the mediaeval flat earth myth.

As for the sexual misconduct allegations, they weren't proven, but even if you take NDT entirely at his own word...it might not rise to the level of criminal misconduct, but it sure is creepy as fuck behaviour. Grabbing under someone's dress straps? Inviting a subordinate home for a private meal?

But it's not clear to me that we should just take him at his word. His own post defending himself, particularly the 1980s case, spends an awful lot of time attacking the character of the accuser. Whereas in the other cases he at least attempts to play it in the respectful "oh I can see how you might have gotten the wrong impression and I'm sorry" manner, here it's just "no, you're clearly my intellectual inferior and therefore why should anybody believe you?"

As for him being "cleared":

According to Watson, the so-called “investigations” Tyson was referring to consisted of the following: “I had one 30-minute sit-down with a Fox HR representative and a 45 minute-hour sit-down with a man from a private company. I gave them both lengthy lists of extremely reliable people who could corroborate my story, text messages from that time, emails NDT had sent to me, etc. None of the people I gave contact info for were ever contacted by these companies.”

In his defence, I will say, I've seen a lot of people accusing him of also getting the physics wrong on certain things. And at least one case of him getting into a conversation with Richard Dawkins where he supposedly got something wrong about DNA. My read on most of the situations of this sort that I've seen are that they're either minor errors that are naturally going to occur in off-the-cuff discussions, or stem from an imprecision of language where the actual point he is trying to convey was totally reasonable. Maybe, given he's a science communicator, he should try better to get these things right, and be ready to correct them in the comments or in editing when they happen and are pointed out, which is something he seems not to do. But I don't consider this a slight on him as a person at all. Not at the scale that I've seen.