That may be correct, but through capitalism we should still have the power. Moreover, I own my own website, and this pandering still has the potential to have my property effectively removed or disabled without my consent. This is the fundamental battle, here, and with social media companies: where should your effective influence end? Should my internet provider have the power to remove my website, if the website is hosted on my computer and they only provide the cables that connect it to someone else's cables? The question, more specifically, is "Where do your rights end and mine begin?" GOG's stance here is almost universally condemn-able, because they had already made a deal (a contract, if you will), and backed out of it, declaring China's presumed rights as trumping the private business between GOG and this Taiwanese company. That's like saying that you have the right to intervene in my contract between me and my ISP, because my website says something you don't agree with.
kohlrak: Don't give these clowns undue credit.
HappyPunkPotato: Maybe not but I certainly don't plan on trusting them either. Mind you, I rarely trust a company which is why I'm disappointed in GOG. Serves me right I guess.
You shouldn't trust them. It's academentia; hubris. They thing the have capabilities and knowledge that they don't have ,based on small sample sizes. These people like to believe they've gotten enough knowledge to play God without ill effects. Time and time again, they have to be knocked down a peg, but the confirmation bias among these elites has reached to such levels, that Trump supporters are Russian bots. Then again, maybe "Russian bots" is the political equivalent to GOG's "many gamers."