> These companies aren't making independent decisions on this. Here is how the system works. I don't think you have enough expertise on digital ads these days.

> These companies aren't making independent decisions on this. Here is how the system works. I don't think you have enough expertise on digital ads these days. Allocation and execution of advertising budget is a highly data driven process. Those activists cannot really make any dents if a platform can deliver consistent, predictable and high performances. But nowadays no one thinks the word "predictable" accurately describes the status quo of Twitter so many advertisers pulled their budget to avoid hassles. Still the platform is supposed to be performing well thanks to how digital auction works. Big budgets are gone, less competitions on the auction so you're supposed to get more slots at lower costs, right? In this case, the loss should be minimal and advertisers will quickly return. But the problem is that its advertising platform is not working smoothly as before. Its ads frequency has increased significantly (1 per 5 tweets recently), which is a usual playbook for advertising networks when it needs to quickly cover significant performance loss. And Twitter was known to be one of the weakest advertising networks and it's even demonstrating a weaker performance. Okay, it might not be that problem if Elon is willing to fix all the issues. And Elon is known to be a prominent hater of digital ads and has explicitly expressed that he wants to move the major revenue stream to other products (like Twitter Blue), so it's fairly natural to conclude that its investments on advertising will deteriorate even in the longer term. I don't see any reasons for advertisers to remain on platform. Stop blaming those "activists" or whatever you (and Elon) don't like. This is a conscious decision made by Elon, he just didn't know the consequence.