Again, there is no moral statement or policy endorsement here. I’m not saying here that they are wrong to be leftist or that they are wrong to promote their ideology by censorship. I’m discussing thethat they are lefties. Very leftists . The scientific study done with 600 Silicon Valley elites found that they have far-left views, they donate money to Democrats and leftist causes in bigger part of their income than “normal” businessmen give to Republicans and Silicon Valley itself voted Democrat more than any other place besides DC.

The researchers conclude “We argue business elites in an industry can share distinctive values and predispositions which can override their self-interest”. Perfect example of such action against self-interest is “82% of technology entrepreneurs indicate support for universal healthcare even if it means raising taxes” [they are big taxpayers already]. They’ve also found that the Tech elite is the most cosmopolitan, globalist, anti-racist, and pro social lefty (gay rights, abortion, gun control…) population in the USA.

This is a “beautiful” picture of the “Soviet man”, the idea of a higher being who transcends his self-interest and work selflessly for the common good. In this view the future is a lefty paradise where the most adept are working day and night to create value and then distribute it among those who need it.

There is just one “little” bad detail in this otherwise perfect picture: they are heavily anti-regulation and anti-labor-union, even more than Republicans. They are also the most likely to agree that entrepreneurs are the most valuable people, just like Rand said. One could ask, why would these higher beings who don’t mind being taxed for the poor would not give a fair share of their wealth to those workers who help it create and consider themselves better than them?!

Despite the researchers write “Theories based on self-interest would not likely predict the unique pattern of views and behavior of the ascendant economic elite we studied”, they are dead wrong. Everything Silicon Valley does they do for making themselves even more rich at the expense of everyone else and their lefty politics is nothing but a regulatory capture attempt to reach this singular goal. How would taxing rich people like themselves and giving health care and welfare to the poor serve their self-interest? The best analogy of Silicon Valley would be the alcohol industry supporting a policy of giving tax money to alcoholists which they will surely spend on more booze. The Silicon Valley business model is selling advertisements. Ads only work if there are impulse buyers with money who will buy the advertised products or the advertisers will stop advertising. So Silicon Valley is dependent on impulse buyers just as much as the booze industry on alcoholists. How can you recognize an impulse buyer? He is poor, since irresponsible financial behavior is the reason of poverty. So any money given to poor people or any necessary service given them for “free” (like “free” health care or food stamps allowing them to not spend on health care or food) let them impulse buy more. Rich people don’t impulse buy (that’s how they got rich), so they are worthless to Silicon Valley. So Silicon Valley supports any transfer from the rich to the poor, just like the booze industry would support a transfer from the sober to the alcoholist.

Hollywood wasn’t researched but it fits to this scheme as they also make lot of money on selling ads. Also no one pays $1M for watching a movie, so their income depends on lots of people paying a few dollars. But poor people won’t have money for movies, unless they get from the big government.