I found Twitter useful before Musk, I find it useful now. I'm not sure the quality of discourse is improved or worse, but it is certainly more diverse and so you get more garbage from the right whereas more of the garbage in the past was from the left.
This is almost certainly confirmation bias unless it's just a factor of people who you followed on the left leaving the platform.
Right leaning posts on average empirically get far more reach on the Twitter/FB algorithm than left leaning posts. The further right, the further the reach. It's a cause and effect thing, not pro-right a bias thing. Those posts tend to be more controversial, which brings in more reactions (retweets, replies, etc) which is what maximizes reach in the algorithm. It's the reason Andrew Tate has 4x as many followers as Al Gore.
This is well known in the advertising space. If you want to quickly grow an account on Twitter/FB, you post right leaning content, because right leaning content gets the most reach in the algorithm, and it's been that way for many years.
The problem people claimed to have about bias was in regards to who was suspended from the platform, not how much reach they got when they were unsuspended. Even that to me is most likely mostly correlation, as posting more controversial content naturally leads to skirting a finer tightrope with breaking the ToS and doing something suspension worthy, but that is a whole separate argument.
But algorithmic reach has always been extremely right tilted, empirically enough that many advertisers who care nothing about politics and only about exposure and $$$ have based their entire approach around it.
For You is CLEARLY designed to keep you on the app, and no one wants to be manipulated by an algorithm.
