You mean virtue signalling one thing, whilst actively and simultaneously doing the opposite by supporting known malicious platforms?

Not exactly - perhaps if you only look at the public statements made by the CEOs.

If you look at how Meta spends money, they spend billions per year in moderation and brand-safety technology and people and processes.

Meanwhile, in the Twitter -> X transformation, these roles were all but eliminated.

And yes, one CEO says "it is important we get this right" and the other one says "fuck it all", then it's more "signaling priorities" than "virtue signaling".

Billions per year in moderation, and they're still being sued for distributing child abuse material?

Also, you forgot the bit about how much Meta spends on lawyers suing federal agencies so they can use data they scraped from their underage users:

https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-11-30...

The problem is fundamental to any jpeg uploading website. For the computer it is just a bunch of numbers. You need a human brain or something imitating the brain for the computer to understand the meaning of the arrangement of numbers.

This is what Meta's human brains are doing with child abuse material: https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23005576/facebook-content...

And this is what they're doing with data they illegally harvested from children: https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-11-30...

(and there are many more examples)

Yes, their moderation is not 100% and companies can be sued for any reason. AFAICT there has not been a finding in these lawsuits, it’s probably not a smart idea to use the existence of a lawsuit as evidence that something nefarious has happened.

And also yes, I am using evidence of how they spend their money as an indication of their intent. It’s the embodiment of putting their money where their mouth is.

Yep, capitalism as usual, working as intended.

It is possible to be capitalist, and not two faced and hypocritical.

That's true, but it's dependent on people maintaining personal ethics. Unfortunately the incentives are aligned with not maintaining ethics so you can make more money. I've had this discussion with a coworker plenty of times. His argument is regulation makes capitalism safer and the best option we have, while I argue that "after the fact" regulation only prevents someone from repeating someone else's unethical strategy and most likely the initial, unethical party will not really be punished for doing what wasn't illegal at the time. Maybe they get fined, but nowhere near the revenue they generated with the unethical strategy.