Amateur predictions of the sizes of heated online conversations

Author Isabel Kaplan just wrote a piece in The Guardian about a bad relationship she was in and conflict with her ex about his worry that she would write about him.

I have fairly uninteresting opinions on Kaplan's piece itself. But I've already seen people talking about it online a bit. Here's what I just commented in the MetaFilter thread:

It has been 14 months since our 683-comment thread about the conflict between Dawn Dorland and Sonya Larson (a.k.a. "Bad Art Friend" a.k.a. the kidney donor story).

Comparing and contrasting, as I consider whether the already-burgeoning online debate over Kaplan's piece will be as big as that one was:

- (no obvious race-related element)
+ (class element)
+ (sexism)
+ (bad het relationships)
? (the Larson-Dorland conflict was between 2 women, and this conflict is between a man and a woman where the man comes off worse; here on MetaFilter I think that means far fewer people will take his side but I don't know about the larger Internet)
- (no fraught "how we use social media today" element)
- (has not (yet?) stirred friends of the different sides in the conflict to publicly announce their allegiances)
- (does not bring new light re: workshops, magazines, or similar institutions in writing and publishing)
+ (connects to people's opinions of a beloved/well-regarded feminist author)
+ (many of us are writers of memoir-y nonfiction and/or have been written about by such writers)
- (no one here is doing an extraordinarily good altruistic deed that makes some other people uncomfortable to learn about)
+ (controversy over Kaplan's choice to not name her ex in the piece, given that she and her editors could/should have predicted that Internet sleuths would find him quickly)
? (fragmentation of conversation about this controversy into Hive, Post, Mastodon, and other venues instead of? being as concentrated on Twitter)