The founder's destructive behavior wasn't the only factor mentioned - in fact it was the least of all factors mentioned.
... acted like a sociopathic in some people's opinion?
What's with the attempt at dissimulation here? The issue is what the guy did. Not "some people's opinion" of what he did.
I can't see that affecting someone's employment.
I can't see how the founder's ethical standards (expressed not just through what they did 16 year ago, but in the present day) wouldn't affect your experience working at their company.
The issue is labeling and some people like yourself have label this as sociopathic. Others see your label and think less of anything you say for trying to find the most cutting label vs the more accurate.
Why stop at facebook. Throwing chairs should make Microsoft a dead zone. Steve behaviour at Apple in the 80s should force you to return your iphone. Oracle, Amazon are not angels either.. Many of those small places are much worse..
Steve's behavior at Apple in the 80s should force you to return your iPhone.
So we're going in circles now.
Any and all issues raised about a company's ethical behavior in the current day (for example, outsourcing to suppliers with deplorable labor practices) are equivalent to stories of a founder's poor interpersonal skills from decades ago, in your view.
... acted like a sociopathic in some people's opinion?
What's with the attempt at dissimulation here? The issue is what the guy did. Not "some people's opinion" of what he did.
I can't see that affecting someone's employment.
I can't see how the founder's ethical standards (expressed not just through what they did 16 year ago, but in the present day) wouldn't affect your experience working at their company.
The fish rots from the head, as the saying goes.