There is literally nothing socialist about Silicon Valley. Government spending is not socialism and never has been.
If Silicon Valley supported nationalization, collectivization or unionization, you would have a case. But they don't, in fact they're pretty obviously against all of them.
UBI is not socialist, it has roots in Austrian economics. Most socialists are opposed to it, although some might accept it as a short-term compromise. Like I said, socialism is nationalization, collectivization or unionization. It is not the negative income tax proposed by Hayek which maintains market relations and alienation of labor.
As for universal healthcare/single payer, can you show me people representing Silicon Valley that support Medicare For All? Not just employees, not the proles, but actual power brokers?
Allowing the right to take the country on the crazy train to moral and economic destitution is bad for business and the furthest left are a manageable risk. The smart money is in on supporting moderate right and blue majority.
If so, why? I'd expect the President of the United States to have communications channels not controlled by a private company.
One of these things is not like the others. Equating rape threats with what Twitter unilaterally decided was “election misinformation” and using that as a basis to silence a sitting President of the United States is an extreme case of censorship that justifiably scared anyone with views that divert even slightly from Silicon Valley’s brand of extreme leftism.
Even Jack Dorsey acknowledged that Twitter had entered into dangerous territory with this move [1]. Specifically, he said it ”sets a precedent I feel is dangerous: the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation.”
[1] https://twitter.com/jack/status/1349510769268850690?s=21