I know a lot of people are angry he stepped down, dealing with "freedom" and such.
However, he was the public face of the company, as every CEO is. He can say he was speaking for himself, not the company, but when you're CEO, that's never true. You're always that CEO, especially when you're posting on a twitter profile in which your profile says you're CEO, and the bulk of your posts are related to your job.
Part of the responsibility that comes with that job, and the salary, is not damaging the company. As soon as you say something heavily controversial, particularly one about removing rights and putting a bounty on the heads of many of your employees and consumers, you've stepped beyond your unofficial duties as CEO, potentially violated your fiduciary duties, and have moved into a space where you're now a distraction and no longer capable of doing your job of leading.
People weirdly downplay the detriment of being a distraction. Why is Cam Newton currently unemployed? He's not even putting out controversial opinions, he's just a distraction. Why did Jamie Tartt find it so hard to find a new job despite being one of the best premier league players? Because he was a distraction.
No one wants to deal with a distraction, so distractions get shown the door.