I think this article boils down to "virtue signalling isn't neccessarily a bad thing, because there are honest signals and dishonest signals[0], and honest signals of virtue are fine, even helpful."

This is a common complaint with the phrase "virtue signalling" -- signalling virtue isn't a bad thing if you're actually virtuous, after all. But it's clear from context that when people say "virtue signalling," they mean it in a negative sense, when the signal is dishonest. Nobody has ever used "virtue signalling" as a compliment (in the field of public discourse), so the distinction isn't all that useful IMO.

I think in the age of Twitter, having a phrase for "dishonestly raising a moral issue for personal gain" is helpful. It seems the hive mind has chosen "virtue signalling" for that purpose, so while another phrase (I like "moral grandstanding") might work better... oh well.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory#Honest_signa...