Simply because he can exploit a large quantity of rubes to make money doesn't change the fact its not exactly an ethically sound choice.
> I do not know him personally, to answer your question, but it does appear to me that the rather superficial ramblings he offers in articles and blog posts and interviews are at least skewed to the idea that he can do some good in the world, even if his idea of good is perhaps different than yours.
Every "liberal" CEO does that and tries to make themselves sound generous and empathetic. It is good for their income, it is good for their corporate image, and its good for the professional prospects.
Even his charitable acts are largely grandiose tossing of money that frequently fails due to a lack of even basic research. He doesn't genuinely care and its pretty damn obvious when people who donate a couple grand put more effort into researching how well its used than he researched pretty much any of his charitable attempts.
Facebook is a company that _badly_ needs public good will to remain in operation because if people lose faith they'll abandon the network.
I genuinely do not understand how people fail to realize these sorts of things are a combination of ego, self-interest, and political leanings rather than genuine desire. If they were genuine desire, he would have retired from running Facebook like Bill Gates and focused on charity.