"has probably not been steered by a 20 year-old", "he's likely been coached just to not come off as a robot"
How much of this is speculation and how much of this is fact?
Either way, it's not like having advisors or help makes someone's accomplishments important. Presidents have armies of staff, all CEO's have advisors and aides and coaches, and Assange doesn't run wikileaks alone.
Do you really believe that Facebook is driven by Zuckerberg? All things considered there are a lot of descisions an a lot of deals to be done. Couple that with a lot of investors and a lot of money, and you're not going to let the Zuck learn by making billion dollar mistakes.
The comparison with Steve Jobs etc have been more marketing than fact. It's kind of unbelievable that you're believing any differently. Steve Jobs also likely had a great deal of coaching at the beginning, that's why they hired real business people and that's why Facebook has done the same. Not to mention partnering with countless tech businesses.
Do you really believe that Facebook is driven by Zuckerberg?
No, but I'm not quite sure why it matters. No business with 1000+ employees is driven by a single person. If Steve Jobs was "Person of the Year" for 2010 for some of Apple's accomplishments, would we be sitting around discussing how it's wrong to give him the award because he doesn't run every aspect of Apple all by himself?
The CEO and founder is the face of a company, that's just the way it is.
My other large nitpick here though is making criticism based on personal speculation... "probably doesn't make all decisions", "is likely getting help" etc.
How much of this is speculation and how much of this is fact?
Either way, it's not like having advisors or help makes someone's accomplishments important. Presidents have armies of staff, all CEO's have advisors and aides and coaches, and Assange doesn't run wikileaks alone.