Under this guidance for example, Shell could advertise all they want on twitter, but running an ad against Shell about how they pollute the environment or contribute to global warming would be banned.
So then your options are to ban all advertising, or be selective in what advertising you allow. Which is inherently a political position.
Secondly, suppose you could not advertise about shell so what? You can advertise for Greenpeace and related causes.
Which, again, means companies like Shell could advertise all they want, but anything that calls them out would be considered political.
One would have to have a purposefully obtuse definition of political speech to outlaw ads by charities but allow Shell.
Twitter isn't drawing a line in the sand as much as they are deciding to ban the whole beach and kick everyone off it.
Very similar problem. I would expect that they would keep track of who is doing the flagging and whether their flagging is consistent with other flaggers, and various other tests for "naturalness" and lack of bias and so on. Then weight things appropriately.
Take the decision out of what is true / not true out of it and just remove the political advertisements all together.