Flaser: The ironic thing of course is...
First: to be fair to Hinterland, I don’t actually know whether their obviously pro-PC stance was related to pulling the game off the store. I suspect as much, but there could have been some other reasons, e.g. contract details that Hinterland didn’t like anymore (which neither side would publicly talk about due to NDAs).
In a more general sense, from my POV far away from North America, the political correctness debacle over GOGs tweets is a multi-layered irony cake of massive proportions:
1. The tweets may be considered in poor taste for a company, but aren’t actually hateful. This means that people who want to see that behaviour punished have to resort to a weaker argument: either that it’s edgy humour, which is not allowed on that particular topic, or that it’s “dog whistling” (apparently innocent speech that signals underlying hate).
2. When informed that Poland has a long tradition of highly irreverent humour (originating partly in being occupied by cruel foreign powers for nearly 200 years with some breaks in between) , such people insist that “if they sell in the US/Canada, they need to adopt our standards”. Since GOG doesn’t have regional storefronts, this actually means that all of GOG’s customers everywhere are also impacted by these supposed US/Canadian political correctness standards. Apparently people half across the world need to care e.g. that someone “hijacked” a Twitter thread in US politics (which hijacking had no real political impact, so far as I can tell).
There’s a fancy academic word for that: neocolonialism. Officially, social justice folks shouldn't like neocolonialism but in this instance they sure do.
3. This extreme reaction comes usually from “allies”, not the actual minority themselves. This is relevant, because if a group is perceived as unable to take a mild joke at its own expense, it’s going to be infantilized by some allies and/or disliked for that fact alone by some of the uninvolved public. When words aren’t obviously hateful, there’s a social cost to seeing them as such and the allies assume the right to put that cost on “their minority’s” social credit card. As someone who actually belongs to a different group that would be a protected minority in the West, I’d rather not have allies of that sort, so I suspect not everyone in the relevant Western minority actually approves of this. But their opinions would count less than those of their loud "allies".
4. All such actions look like tempests in teapots when you consider, for example, that both the US and Canada import billions of dollars worth of oil a year from Saudi Arabia, i.e. an authoritarian regime that really doesn’t like gay and lesbian people, has tortured and murdered political opposition members (including journalists), etc. But since an initiative to cut down oil consumption for actual social justice wouldn’t be as pleasant, people spend their time hyperventilating about someone hijacking a Twitter hashtag or making an "edgy" advert for a very "edgy" game instead.