The simultaneity of the NBA and now Blizzard so publicly siding with Beijing may elevate this out of the realm of commercial issues (subject to boycotts) into a political one.
What would we have them do? Apply pressure to Activision/Blizzard to reverse the company's own internal policy on "keep politics out of the game stuff?" That's a pretty clear violation of freedom of speech, the press, and / or association, to tell a private company who they must endorse.
It's not unprecedented, but the precedents are very tightly bound (and often tied up in a justification based on use of very finite public resources, such as broadcast airwaves).
We have laws prohibiting private actors from interfering with American foreign policy. And we have safe harbours for protected speech. Combining these two, narrowly, to apply to Hong Kong and Taiwan might thread the needle.
To get around First Amendment issues, it would have to be a law saying, in effect, private actors may not punish employees, contractors or members for expressing opinions connected to Hong Kong or Taiwan’s proto-democratic and democratic systems. (This would probably also require Congress recognise Taiwan’s sovereignty, which after Hong Kong looks necessary.)
I don't think that carve out would be constitutional unless it was even more broad. Say "personal capacity political advocacy is protected" so you could get fired for saying "<Company> supports Free Tibet" without proper permission/authority but "I, not speaking on behalf of <Company> support Free Tibet". Even that would open itself to damn uncomfortable side effects legally for a weatherman opening every broadcast with "I support the reestablishment of Rhodesia!" being protected as well.
https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights...
The Logan Act [1] has been on the books since the 19th century, though it remains Constitutionally controversial.
Broadly speaking, however, there is difference between punishing certain views and expanding public-sphere protections around free speech. The latter is done e.g. with union-promotion laws, which restrict companies' abilities to suppress certain kinds of union-organizing speech. That precedent could certainly be extended to this issue.
Concentration camps are evil, and so is using prisoners as living organ banks. Furthermore, China is run by competent people and has a large economy growing faster than the West. They are a bigger threat than Nazi Germany or the USSR were. China has a serious chance of dominating the world over a 20-30 year timescale.
I don't want that to happen. If McCarthyism is what it takes to stop it, so be it; I would prefer that over having my organs removed while I am still conscious.