Okay, maybe this can help. Do you remember the five W's? Who, what, where, when, and why. When you're encountering a problem you can describe it with those different questions. We'll concern ourselves with just two of them here.
To start with. what did Blizzard do? What is the actual activity that earned them criticism?
What Blizzard did was that they punished a player for speaking out against the interests of the ruling Communist Party of China. The effect of that action, the concern, is that by choosing to punish this they're legitimizing China's oppression and delegitimizing resistance to it.
These are the facts of what happened. The what of the situation cannot be changed by answering some other distinct question.
Why did they do it? Most will tell you that it's a business reason. Not a whole lot are going to claim that they just really hate people from Hong Kong. The Communist Part of China controls the media in China, which includes foreign media entering the country, and as such it is necessary to go through the party to access the Chinese market.
You've been arguing that Blizzard was doing this because they're an entertainment company. That's not only something no one was arguing against, but it's a question of why. That doesn't change what they did regardless.
You might frame the argument as Blizzard being concerned about their image, and and so they aren't supporting the political position of China. That doesn't make sense. That "support" describes holding an end goal, whereas other people saying "support" means acting in a given interest in practice. Take a moment to appreciate the difference between the two meanings.
Blizzard doesn't need to have supporting the interests of China as their end goal in order to support the interests of China. It can be, and most would agree that it is, simply a step necessary to achieve some other end goal.
You're also resenting this as Blizzard trying to provide a sterile environment and that the action can happen without the intent for it to support China. This is closer to a what argument, which is why I've constantly tried to explain to you why it can't work and constrasted with methods that actually would.
Wanting to make a pleasant, safe environment is not necessarily behaviour to criticize. But that isn't done by being apolitical, and again, you can't be to start with. Removing Nazi rhetoric - not acknowledgement of their atrocities, but their stances and arguments - would lend to a pleasant and safe environment. But you do that because the Nazi agenda is inherently violent, and so any policy that opposes incitement of violence must remove Nazism as a matter of course. That's also an active and aggressively political stance, not an apolitical one.
On the other hand, as I've noted, you can't remove political statements completely. If you set as your method to achieving that pleasant environment, you will as an inherent necessity be forced to define which political statements that are acceptable and which aren't. You're putting yourself in the position to decide what issues will be politicized. So Blizzard cannot use this method to simply create an environment without also making their own political statements in doing it.
And once Blizzard has made their political statements, we have the what of the problem that garners them the criticism. No amount of why can change it at that point.
