In fact I'm pretty sure this is happening already regardless of these changes. I recently saw on Reddit that YouTube is promoting ads for very obvious gift card scams, even though I've personally never seen any of those in the few times my ad blocker let me down. Presumably this is because those ads are only targeted to a certain subset of people to both maximise ROI as well as avoid being shown to someone smart enough to identify it as a scam and potentially report it and blow up the whole operation.
A good start (besides banning the cancer that is advertising) would be to have all advertising platforms publish a searchable archive of every ad, who paid for it and the targeting criteria. This means people can at least look behind the curtain and see which ads are out there that they wouldn't normally see due to the targeting criteria not matching them.
Not all advertising (especially in the broad sense of the word) is bad. There is one ad in particular in the last year that I'm very glad I saw, because it alerted me to the existence of a product that has provided a lot of value to me. Of course, most advertising nowadays is trash and the web is barely usable without an ad-blocker, but in principle, I think having unobtrusive ads for vetted products isn't such a bad thing.
Anything that reduces the difficulty of tracing should be seen as an improvement. It's a long road from here to perfection, but that's no reason not to take a step.
Definitely this policy is an improvement, but many of the worst offenders have more than sufficient resources to avoid any impact from this change. It's already the norm for political organizations to adopt entirely useless names. What's the difference between "People for the American Way" and "Citizens United?" And these are both decades-old organizations, not a modern occurrence.
Various regulations (some hinging on direct involvement in electoral advocacy) require various degrees of disclosure of funding sources and beneficial owners, but the system is uneven and often minimally enforced. In practice I expect a huge number of legal entities running advertising whose operators cannot readily be ascertained. This is already the case with groups like Metric Media Foundation where a good degree of investigative journalism was required to figure out who was pulling the strings.
Laws and rules are far slower to adapt than the workarounds that bend them. And clear ownership says little. Everything can simply point to a more or less real identity that nobody will ever find.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against such rules. I'm just saying that the likelihood of them achieving the results we imagine are slim.
Corporate ownership is also traded as a commodity. The US Auto Parts Northeast Region Transmissions Warranty subsidiary is required to hold assets sufficient to bond the warranties it issues, so instead of keeping a large pile of hundred dollar bills on the coffee table, it holds shares of the parent company and you now have circular ownership. If the parent company is loaded up with debt then you might find that the subsidiaries like that own the majority or entirety of the parent company -- without even necessarily realizing it.
You also have the problem that people willing to commit fraud are willing to commit fraud. Convince some credulous victim that all they have to do is put in $1000 and sign some papers and they can invest in The Next Big Thing and they've not only scammed them out of $1000, now it's the victim's name on the shell corp.
Generally speaking identifying people who don't want to be identified is hard, the methods effective to do so oppress innocent people more than anything, and it is best to look to other solutions. For example, if you discover people are publishing misinformation, show the truth to the same people who saw the misinformation.
Finding an appropriate n might be a delicate, many big (legitimate) businesses have really complicated ownership structures. Then you have to task someone with validating all of this. Whose expense is it to do the due diligence and check everything? WHo takes responsibility for failures in this regard? And finally it will mean some business is lost on both sides and it might be a lot of money.
Banks have anti money laundering policies yet still find ways to go around them all the time because they want the business. Banking secrecy wasn't there to protect privacy but to obscure shady activities. As I said, it's good to have the rule and I'm not against it but I have the feeling people have some unrealistic expectations from this. They just raise the bar a bit and filter out the "chaff" while still allowing larger interests to prevail.
It is something between 10 and 13, if you accept that governance structure of an organisation must match its social communication structure. It is something between 14 and 16, if you accept that governance structure of an organisation must match its business divisions. Any n>16 is prone to communication shortcutting.
Workers aren't management/owners.
Think from the perspective of an advertiser. Earlier, an advertiser could pay for any ad anonymously. Now any ad you want to show can be traced back to you. This is a meaningful difference. Even if you as a viewer can't pinpoint the specific person behind an ad, they are not completely anonymous anymore (to Google, to law enforcement that may have a warrant, etc). Of course, this change comes at the cost of a reduction in freedom from the lack of anonymity.