Yes, a lack of disincentive to hypocrisy and, in fact, considerable disincentive to pointing it out, seems to be the case. Why? From a utilitarian perspective, at the societal level hypocrisy undermines the "cooperate" Nash equilibrium; at the individual level, it undermines "conscience". The question we might ask is how did we lose conscience? If psychological egoism is the default "philsophy" of humans (and I think that it is, just as "autocracy" is the default governing system), then the better question is how did we get it and maintain it in the first place? In an ideal world you get to do tests, where one group's values are tested against another group with different values to see which group is stronger. An example of this is with war - WWII was liberalism vs fascism, and the Cold War was liberalism vs communism. We won both. So what happened? Could it be that liberalism collapses on its own when it's not measured against an alternative?

A lot of “hypocracy” is nothing of the sort. Selectively using the rules that are derived from a moral concern is not hypocracy, unless they argued for those rules on those moral grounds. Chinese companies aren't known for their fervant declarations of support for american values, and so it is entirely fair that they play according to the rules-as-written. Now, if they're espousing communist ideals for all people, _then_ there would be a valid claim of hypocracy, but the arguments I see are basically never this nuanced.

Which is not to say that there is no hypocracy these days, just that the word is so frequently misapplied that its use is little more than a signal of emotional valence.