I am not buying this, in the narrow definition, politics is relevant to politicians and elections. Shell is just a private company, so is fair game.

Secondly, suppose you could not advertise about shell so what? You can advertise for Greenpeace and related causes.

Greenpeace would absolutely be considered political and likely banned, considering the causes they advocate for.

Which, again, means companies like Shell could advertise all they want, but anything that calls them out would be considered political.

This is an absurd claim. Any charity advocates something, from planting trees to helping the poor.

One would have to have a purposefully obtuse definition of political speech to outlaw ads by charities but allow Shell.

Just because sometimes lines can be hard to draw, it doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't be drawn.

I don't disagree. I absolutely think Twitter should draw lines. It's just intellectually dishonest to try and get around it by banning all political advertising, but it's obvious because Twitter doesn't want to take a stance on anything. So they want to act like they effectively take a stance on nothing.

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.