I think the claim is that the principled stance would be to ignore all X content.

Which is just the "yet you participate in society" meme again.

No, it's not. Don't be so intellectually lazy.

The author of the comment higher up is describing a person who is boycotting X because they are strongly against its stewardship and moderation but regardless continues to find ways to indulge themselves in the content produced by users of X, for other users of X.

How else should we describe the position held? It's clearly not entirely principled and veers directly into performative action (i.e. virtue signalling).

I admit I'm not nor have been a Twitter/X user so am able to look at the situation without a sense of entitlement or attachment.

> The author of the comment higher up is describing a person who is boycotting X because they are strongly against its stewardship and moderation but regardless continues to find ways to indulge themselves in the content produced by users of X, for other users of X.

Yes. Because we have to participate in a society in which sometimes, that's where the info is. Some towns only post their announcements on Facebook/X! Some people prominent on my framework of choice are only on X.

> How else should we describe the position held? It's clearly not entirely principled and veers directly into performative action (i.e. virtue signalling).

Virtue isn't a binary. I can reduce my externalities, even if I can't eliminate them.