I think this narrative is a simplification: what’s going on is not that “activists” boycotts (as Musk puts it) are leading to advertisers pulling out. At least

I think this narrative is a simplification: what’s going on is not that “activists” boycotts (as Musk puts it) are leading to advertisers pulling out. At least not yet. It’s more that the nature of advertising implicitly prevents any kind of controversial stance. Advertisers don’t want to be seen in places with a “bad” reputation, or where folk are having a bad time. They don’t want to be near anything anyone ever finds upsetting or agitating. They don’t want to be near anything that seems “political”. This was partly why, when I worked in ads for a newspaper, our highest value line items were for sections like lifestyle, and fashion (readers feel inspired and aspirational); then positive news like science and health (readers feel optimistic); with slots on politics pages doing comparatively badly (and no slots sold at all on natural disasters or disturbing content). Advertisers with money want to invest it latching onto “good vibes”. It’s not just that Kellogs don’t want to risk being “cancelled” when a cornflakes ad shows up next to an Ivermectin conspiracy theory; it’s that an environment like that becomes uncomfortable for half your buyers, and a hate-read for the other half.