Folks were worried about Trump's conflicts of interest, but Zuckerberg quite literally owns one of the nation's largest news redistributors which is already actively taking steps to control which news is shared.
Not just the nation. He controls much of what the developed world sees and reads, and has access to and control over much of the developed world's public and private communication.
This is a really silly argument. Zuckerberg is not a bad candidate because it is hard to imagine him as a politician. He is a bad candidate because we can see the impact of Zuckerberg's attitude toward the general population in the way he manages the Facebook platform. That is not a society anyone wants.
I think Trump is a twit but I would rather have someone that seems grounded, like bill gates for example, than a guy with floaty dreamland ideas that Facebook can make everyone like each other.
I'm pretty sure we'll see a Zuckerberg Presidency the same way we see Facebook being run as a business. He'll do the minimum to keep people happy and then quietly sell you out behind closed doors.
Intelligence is important, but intelligent people with very little in the way of ethical standards are far more dangerous than they are helpful.
But being a politician is not just having an opinion about things - it's also being a strategist, and having a sound knowledge about how the political system works, ethics and being able to cooperate with people you disagree with. Traits Zuckerberg has yet to show he has.
Zuckerberg in office could do better than Trump but for now I don't see him as a net positive to the world, magnifying that by handing him the keys to the kingdom could do a lot of damage.