I think the article misses entirely the point and the problem of virtue signalling, which is not hypocrisy in my opinion. Because the problem with virtue signal

I think the article misses entirely the point and the problem of virtue signalling, which is not hypocrisy in my opinion. Because the problem with virtue signalling is more on the "virtue" part than on the "signalling" part. People tend to align themselves to whatever they perceive to be ethical line of the group; and some people (quite a good pecentage) do so with great fervour and very vocally. I don't think they're hypocrites: they really do believe what they're saying. The problem is that they're just repeating and enforcing the values of their group, whatever those might be, and without allowing any discussion or critical thought about them. Then it's easy to see that those values might absolutely wrong or contradictory: yet the virtue signallers can't see that and don't accept any discussion, because they align fully and automatically with the others and contribute in the alignment of the whole group. So when the group adopts aberrant ethical rules (choose your favourite example) it's the virtue signallers that are the more vocal in upholding and spreading them with their perfect and pure conviction.