No, science fiction does not magically turn readers into "technocratic libertarians"

I am a big science fiction fan and have seen many online claims about Musk, Altman, and Bezos being shaped by reading pulpy sci-fi novels into becoming "technocratic libertarians," as discussed in the Techcrunch interview with historian Jill Lepore. I have to ask: Where's the evidence? 

Lepore, in her response to TechCrunch's Anthony Ha, says "I guess Bezos is a big Robert Heinlein fan" which hardly sounds conclusive. That is followed by a lot of back-and-forth talk about Asimov and other science fiction thinkers. 

No one is disputing that these billionaires didn't read science fiction. One journalist writing about Amazon noted that the only work of fiction on Bezos' office bookshelf in the early days was by Larry Niven, the author of Ringworld. Musk took an invented word from Asimov ("grok," which means to understand) and applied it to an AI in his social media business. He also likes building rockets and a business built on space exploration. 

But so what? I read Heinlein and Niven and Asimov when I was young, too, along with a bunch of great works by Delaney and Wolfe as well as pulpier stuff by James P. Hogan and Ben Bova. Does that make me and millions of other science fiction fans technocratic libertarians? If not, why do people regularly point to science fiction as the source of these three men's libertarian leanings? 

We've moved way past "magic bullet" theory of mass media -- the discredited idea that a media message triggers an identical response across anyone seeing it. 

Maybe people like reading science fiction for the stories, the settings, and the speculation, and nothing more. It might influence them to get excited about space, but so can watching the broadcast of a Space Shuttle launch or pictures from Voyager 2 as it passed Saturn. To go from "reading science fiction" to "liking space" to "turning into a technocratic libertarian" is a major stretch.