It's true that more people are now putting actions behind their words, and leaving Twitter for the Fediverse because of the new leadership at Twitter, but this seem to be only partly because of the right-wing turn and much more because of the instability showing just how insane it is for the world to let a social media platform be moderated by the whims of a billionaire.
I frankly think Trump is right to stay on Truth. Because what happens when Elon eventually loses interest in Twitter and sells it to someone else? That is the strength of the Fediverse to be honest. You get to operate your own servers that are part of the larger whole. This would let journalists, politicians and NGOs run, and more importantly moderate, their own "Twitter" that is still part of the larger whole. Here in Denmark it would allow our government agencies to operate a "Twitter" where all our elected officials could have an account and not have to rely on an American tech company to moderate their feeds, or risk being banned for violating American laws. Yes, the consequence will very likely be that ultra right-wing networks will be largely isolated, but that's still free speech.
https://crimethinc.com/2020/12/21/surviving-the-social-media...
The idea that there are "two sides" and that one was "in power" before and the other now, is an over-simplification.
I can't find an exact piece to quote now, but I know I saw crimethinc and/or other anarchists urging people not to get so excited about calling for twitter to ban things too, on the grounds of: Don't count on capitalists or the state to rescue us, they will much prefer to use their tools against us, and overall the power twitter has to control discourse is the problem and we've got to get off of it.
In fact, Twitter (and other social media platform) algorithms have been shown to amplify right-wing content more often than left-wing content, not suppress it. Which is of course why they're trying so hard to control it.
It's also self-evident, honestly, that the human moderators, which overviewed the decisions of the algorithm in Twitter 1.0 were predominantly left-leaning, with many LGBTQ+ members working as contractors, moderating from home.
The sad thing for me is the hypocrisy. Here is Elon coming and proclaiming himself a "free speech absolutist" and "comedy is now legal", and then start banning accounts in large swaths on a whim based on whatever right-wing $8 badge buyers tweet at him, including a whole group of apolitical comedy accounts.
This will shrink Twitter and turn it into Parler.
The right see the destruction of Twitter as a win, and it is a win, but quite a short term one. This network will rebuild itself elsewhere, and you won't have $44 billion ready every time for the next hostile takeover.
I see this as a huge missed opportunity to have a truly inclusive platform that welcomes everyone and takes no sides. I have no idea if Elon Musk lied about this intentionally or he was coached and tricked into it by his right-wing supporters, but he shot his investment in the foot.
The right isn't a cultural underdog trying to get visibility. The right has always been the primary political and cultural force in the US, to the point that what counts as "the left" in American politics (the Democratic Party) is still ideologically center-right.
I agree with you about Elon and the eventual fate of Twitter, although I fear you haven't yet seen that the entire "free speech absolutism" debate and the narrative that social media platforms are captured and controlled by a leftist agenda was always about promoting right-wing accelerationism and never about political neutrality or free speech.
There is a reason you've rarely if ever seen these discussions or passionate defenses of absolute free speech take place in defense of left-wing speech, only right-wing speech. And it isn't because left-wing speech is never censored or suppressed - it very often is (particularly LGBTQ speech, which is often categorized as "sexual" or NSFW regardless of its content.)