I'd be shocked if these rules get used on the "let's punch Nazis" camp. More likely is that there's now additional things to point to when "problematic" tweets get mass-flagged.
So, things may be changing slowly. It isn't easy for some folks to see faults in people who agree with them. I notice that when I stand up for something on the political right, I'm often assumed to be a member of the right. If I point out a problem with the political left, I'm often assumed to be a member of the political right.
It's very binary and people really aren't always objective. But, there are instances where this is changing. Some BLM members were recently banned because of hate speech and suggesting violence and some AntiFa have also suffered the same fate.
It takes time but it does appear that they are being more honest with their enforcement.
Of course, you still have the group who will try to interpret things as other than written. There are people who see -isms where none exist.
On this topic, it has led me to trying to coin the phrase, 'If you seek umbrage, you will find it.' I've seen another person quote it, so it may be catching on slowly.
I was downright called a "Russian shill" just a few weeks ago. I criticized something Clinton did or said something about "the Russians" campaign. They proceeded to go and dig though my post history and found something 300 some days ago about how I speak Russian, so that was their proof that Putin is sending me a check every month.
There is a definite feel lately of "If you criticize my party, then you clearly must be a member of the other party, probably from the most extremist sub-group of it."
If there appears to be a political valence to Twitter's rules enforcement, it's only one that reflects the relative user base and their weaponization of reporting mechanisms.