Then your argument is for LA creating culture, which it does, not SF. "Tech" distributes art created in Hollywood.
> Society is having huge, diffuse discussions around overuse of phones, internet addiction, political problems of connectivity.
Again not culture, digital addiction if anything. The cigarettes of our generation.
> Culture is not paintings and sculptures, it's the way we behave and interact.
Communication tools are just that, tools. Speech, performance, art, music, all creations that have nothing to do with the tech that distributes it.
> SV is currently the center of technology-based culture, for better or worse.
SF/SV captures, repackages, and distributes art/speech in order to sell ads over the top of it all. Why you think that qualifies as creating culture itself, I don't know.
You think i'm wrong? Try watching a Youtube or Facebook original series. When SV tries to actually create something, it's terrible.
That's what makes SF a financial capital. What are its cultural contributions? Hoodies and overpriced coffee?
> SV owns the west's attention and behavior right now
Tech acts to capture and reflect culture, it doesn't create any. Even if it did, having companies based in SF wouldn't make the city itself a cultural capital. Just economic.