A report by Lincoln Network says that Libertarians and Conservatives (the most free market friendly groups) feel the most job-related dissatisfaction in Silicon Valley. Political bias that significantly suppresses the area of speech and everyday exchange of ideas has become real. However, it is not any best practice to promote productivity and innovativeness in the long run. Many witty critics of libertarians would remind that proponents of the free market economy should take every outcome of free society as sacred. That would be a straw man. There seems to be an error cycle that takes time to correct. Assuming that there are productive people among Libertarians and Conservatives, hostile culture would eventually hurt biased organizations or ecosystems and drive to a gap between potential and actual performance. Corrections depend on the ability to detect changes in performance drivers and outcomes. The impact of institutional, inter-, and intra-organizational forces to deal with complex products and market environment are sometimes difficult to realize by both the critics and also proponents of the free market system.
It happens quite often that people who respect free markets get blamed or at least noticed when commodity or service markets do not provide perfection or when problems that seem obvious to few do not get widely acknowledged and corrected. Common straw man arguments suggest that positive attitudes towards free markets would be derived from a strong assumption of market efficiency or extreme rationality. I do not know where this straw man comes exactly. Maybe it stems from false confidence after reading an economics textbook and the concept of "perfect" competition and its unrealistic assumptions. "Gotcha! Competition is never perfect. Wouldn't this notion debunk your strong reliance on the power of markets?" I have never seen any proponent of free markets leaning on the assumption of perfect markets. On the other hand, there may indeed be proponents who lean on lazy reasoning and who end up simplifying too much and giving such impression. What I find appealing in the idea of free markets is the self-correcting incentive and resource allocation system of profit and loss together with experimentation.
Certain ideologies and hegemonic fashions are selling managerial ideas of potentially useful (human) resource combinations and perceptions of desirable products. They can be problematized directly and indirectly. Despite "diversity" fashion in gender and ethnic issues, many recent cases have shown that organizations have not adopted any consistent approach to diversity. For example, diversity in personality and ideological stances are not fashionable. The news of ideological echo chambers in Silicon Valley represent the opposite. Furthermore, ideologies and fashions come with unexpected developments and blind spots. The eventual financial contribution of specific organizational practices or even product features can be difficult to assess at least in the short term. This holds especially in the case of tech giants with complex business logics and low degree of straight competition.
The Jamos Damore case is a good example of the utter insanity in Silicon Valley.
Also, Youtube, Twitter and FB's censorship policies, especially when it comes to politics, are good indicators of the culture of intolerance that permeates the tech space!