Not to speak for OP, but I think the point is obvious. Silicon Valley culture is liberal to progressive, not libertarian. That means more government intervention is the norm in the industry, not less. Thiel is more of an exception in that regard.
The entire premise that Silicon Valley has a libertarian culture is flawed, which is they the article can't back it up.
So my understanding is Silicon Valley programmers have a liberal to progressive culture, but the VCs that fund tech companies have the reputation of being libertarian. Thiel at least a is a noted libertarian.
The stereotype is that rich investors have these 'libertarian' ideals where they believe that, freed from burdensome taxes and living in a world where bailouts don't happen, they will invest wisely and create a tech utopia thanks to 'survival of the fittest' principles. However, people feel these rich investor types behave more along the lines of 'libertarian principles when we make money, socialism when we are losing money'.
I don't know the extent to that which is true but obviously when rich people have their money threatened it makes sense that they would want a bailout even according to their own 'principles' they shouldn't get it.
I said he was an exception. The general culture of Silicon Valley is liberal to progressive. Thiel is a libertarian, which is uncommon in the industry.
I don't know enough about Altman to say one way or the other, but there is nothing Libertarian about the other 3. In fact, even Thiel is a stretch to call libertarian considering he donated to Trump who is the opposite of a libertarian.
Thiel is the rare breed libertarian who has pondered on his ideology more than a couple of mins and beyond feel good freedom statements, saw that it will conduce to corporate fiefdom, and said: “hey, that looks nice”
I actually respect him a little more than the average libertarian just because of that.
The entire premise that Silicon Valley has a libertarian culture is flawed, which is they the article can't back it up.