While I would say that most companies are "flexible" when it comes to politics, this is quite blatant hypocrisy. If instead most people could see it as it really is, then we could say that there's remarkable consistency in their actions, that the former case was self-censorship in order to avoid political retaliation as it's happened so many times in China, and that the latter case is a publicity stunt for a positive image, both cases catering to the political correctness of the two most prominent political powers of this world.
As a side note, I see this argument circulating around the web seemingly undisputed by the left:
https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2020/06/02/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism/
In China, if something is censored outright instead of publically rebutted, then it's highly likely to be true(though a public rebuttal does not completely rule out its legitimacy); in the west, if something is treated like air by most mainstream media instead of publically rebutted, it also seems to have a higher possibility of being true. And the data it cites looks pretty convincing too.