Zrevnur: I dont know and I dont want to speculate. (And I dont agree with you calling your own speculation 'fact'. Especially given that you even imply that 'China caused it' trumps all over causes. This is a pretty strong statement. Like if it would have been Steam instead of presumably-CCP that GOG groveled too - you sure this wouldnt have caused an uproar too?).
We speculate about things all the time with a reasonable amount of certainty. For example, if someone punches you in the face, you can be reasonably certain that he's mad at you without having to read his mind.
But sure, I'll throw you a bone here. The fact that GOG was impacted is most likely at least equally important to users here.
Zrevnur: There are lots of places for 'should'. 'Should' is perfectly fine if the context makes it clear what the goal is or if there is proper agreement for a common goal. In cases like here I dont see a clearly defined context (in terms of what to strive for) nor an agreed-upon goal. So this leaves the subjective interpretation.
Valuable proper guidelines of behavior tend to be established at some point BEFORE they become the norm.
Just because a lot of people think its a good idea to do something doesn't mean it is.
However, in this case, I think you'd find a fair amount of people who will find that words like "idiot" and "moron" are in bad taste when referring to a live person, let alone a leader. I mean, you think that will lead to a more enlightened rapport with the sizeable following said leader has? Do you think they're gonna go "Oh yeah, you're right, he's idiot. Why didn't I see it before? OMG!!!" or do you think they'll just get upset and more polarized?
So yes, while it may lead to disagreements, I stand firmly behind my "should" here.
Zrevnur: I believe it is
a) Everyones 'divine right' to decide for themselves whether they are upset about this or not.
b) Everyones 'divine right' to believe whether this is entirely pointless or not.
c) Everyones 'divine right' to not care about whether the answer to b) is yes or no.
Also: There is a difference between what an egoist and an altruist would consider pointless. All kind of lobbying, voting, boycotting etc are from a purely egoistical perspective approximately pointless. From a (overly simple but still) mathematical purely altruistic perspective however you can "change the world" (for one person - distributed over all affected persons) with what you do or dont do.
Intend without proper aim might give some people warm feelings, but it doesn't get things done.
I'm more of a humean than a khantian. Whatever prosperity and comfort we have, we don't own to good intent alone. We own to people executing their good intentions well.
Good intentions alone might give you some warm feelings about yourself and how good of a person you are. Its great self-gratification. Good execution is what will lay that brick that people will stand on going forward.
Zrevnur: For me this incident is about GOG. And GOG has a lot of games here. So from the POV of GOGs forum posting: This incident is a big thing. Consequently calling for a boycott (etc) is a "natural" reaction for people who care about such things.
I'm very skeptical that this will steer GOG in any direction, but best of luck with that. For what its worth, I sympathize with the DRM-free angle.
Short of going political or coming with super dev-friendly drm-free alternatives to those corporate gaming platforms being established, I don't know what will.
On the bright side, copyrights do expire at some point. Can't talk about future games, but for existing games here, in a generation or two, if they are successfully preserved by some people, they can be made available to all.
That's something I suppose.