Investors can choose to avoid these shares, of course, since they're missing the "possible takeover premium." In the old days, they would have.
I don't see Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders crusading against this, by the way.
But the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund, which he has mentioned favorably as a potential model for the US, does recommend against investing in companies with these types of share arrangements unless they have a sunset date (their analysis is that there is a benefit to giving founders control but that it diminishes and becomes a detriment over time). Matt Bruenig/People’s Policy Project has written on the topic also.
There are lots of private companies. Going public is not the only way to get liquidity. So I would say, as John Q. Investor, "If you get my money, I get to vote to fire you."
But I mostly agree with your comments here.
Zuckerbergs owns less than 50% of the company but he can do whatever he wants and no activist investor has any say.
Owning these Class-A shares (why not call them class Z?) is worth 1/10 as much as owning class B shares that Mark and his cronies own.
The multiple voting share structure is an abomination and perversion of stock market.
The old way was at least more honest.
Regular shares -> most risk, most profit, actual voting rights
Preferred shares -> less risk, some profit, no voting (what Class A should be)
Bonds -> least risk, set yield, highest preference at liquidation