Few Owner/Managers can drive a culture where diversity of thought is welcomed. Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg is not that company. They're infamous in the Valley for being a cult of personality, all around worshipping their OpStaff (executive team), and following them enthusiastically, or finding opportunities elsewhere. 
Again, I tend to find the coupling of corporations and their founders as somewhat gosh and un-nuanced: assuming the leadership isn't actively fostering it. It feels too ad hominem, to me, to confuse dislike of a company or the leadership, with one another. But nobody seems to do this worse than Facebook. Even Amazon has more separation between Bezos and the company. Most people think Zuckerberg is Facebook, thus they retaliate against Facebook by trashing Mark.
I imagine Mark is probably a nice (but arrogant) guy, 1:1 (like many founder CEO's). And that while he's done an embarrassingly bad job of getting the bigger brand picture, I don't necessarily think all these are fair -- I do think they are a fair representation of the public's dislike of benevolent dictatorships.
There's a bazillion meme's out there, all hinting at the problem. Either Mark is right and the world is wrong, or Mark is pissing off his base, and to egocentric to recognize that he's failing as a good leader. (Assuming being a good leader is about more than just telling others what to do... and includes making them feel like participants in the experience).
There's two ways to lead. (1) Annoy a few people (2) Annoy most people. I'd guess that Mark is firmly in the latter category. Which is fine, you can be successful in spite of yourself, just not as successful as if you had the maturity and likability of the average 30 year old.