The freedom to think and say what one thinks is right does not need permission; that is, where it is attacked, it generates consciousness, not before. The moment it is allowed and no longer attacked, it would no longer be free speech, would it?
Therefore, the attack alone is a sign that those who want to dominate a subject are in a weak position, from that point of view, since it is obvious that they are seeking to eliminate something.

I think what @nonameslefttouse talks about, is that you can continue to publish what you care about and that the attacks via DV are something that you have to put up with insofar as the powers that be opposing it have you in their sights.

This can be a very lengthy process in some circumstances and the best way to prove that you won't be chased by it would be to stay and not be too impressed by it - instead of being concerned about other peoples departure (which is none of my business, I think).

A public muzzling does not mean that one is in private as well.

The question is: When can you stop writing about a particular topic? When no one else will oppose it? That's not going to happen.

Another strategy would be the indirect route. You publish topics that mean something to you without using the common buzzwords. Covid is now going into its third year and it will take care of itself because people will eventually get tired of their lives revolving around this issue. Whether they are pro or con measures. Expect many years from now, my generation (I'm 51 now) will probably have to deal with the fact that we can't go anywhere without a no objection certificate.

The network or parallel communities form and will continue to exist, one will have to find them in the unofficial channels, that have freedom movements so in itself that they do not (can) make public advertising, otherwise they come too quickly and massively under fire.

Renunciation is a sign of this time, because if I don't want to bend under the doctrine, I have to accept significant cuts in my way of life. The question for the individual is where his personal limit is reached and his network is no longer able to support him.

Conversely, of course, it is possible to position yourself as a public figure and gain supporters through that, which in a way protects you as much as "endangers" you, since publicity is always a double-edged sword.

I would say, in general, non-publicity and indirect resistance or a certain healthy indifference is vastly underestimated.
What do you think of that statement?