Was this opening sentence necessary? It is not germane at all to the rest of the article. Ironically, it is itself virtue-signalling (for some definition of virtue), just to a different audience.
The article itself is a nice, well interesting, dive into the topic; kinda unfortunate.
It would be very surprising behaviour for a British guy living in the UK
Surprisingly neutral on topics regarding monarchy/monarchs, in favour of the AV referendum to get rid of plurality voting, and very annoyed at the electoral system for unilaterally changing his name on the voter rolls. (His surname is Q)
Sometimes called "pink capitalism" or "rainbow capitalism", where a company will show the rainbow pride flag for Pride Month, but not put any more substantial effort towards diversity, plurality, LGBTQ rights, etc.
I expect nothing from companies, and it's nice to see that virtue signal. If they're signalling, it means they think we haven't been exterminated yet. But I don't expect good works from anything for-profit. It's just business.
Edit: The author using the phrase "surveillance capitalism" is generally a left wing thing. I don't hear right-wingers rallying against capitalism (let's not even get into the weeds of defining "capitalism" the word) even when they happen to oppose surveillance
Putting diverse races in an ad, while not doing anything else about diversity, is virtue signalling. Complaining there are other races in the ad is vice signalling.
And apparently not targeted all that well, since half the comments here think it is a right-wing (anti-multiculturalism) sentiment, and the other half a left-wing (anti-corporate-reputation-laundering) sentiment.