Eh, I don&#x27;t really have a problem with this sort of thing.  Ownership of a company can be structured in lots of different ways.  I currently own 10% of an LLC, and part of the arrangement is that I have no say in how the LLC is run.  I&#x27;m fine with that, because that was the deal I bought into.<p>Now, one could argue that this &quot;changes the deal&quot; for people who already own shares of FB, but a multi-class structure for FB&#x27;s stock has always been the case (Zuckerburg already owns far less than 50% of the company, but has more than 50% of the voting rights).  Anyone who bought into FB after its IPO should have been aware that they would never have control over the company.<p><i>The idea that a &quot;ruling elite&quot; can overrule the wishes of company&#x27;s majority owners, and use the company&#x27;s resources in any way they want, is conceptually very disturbing. In the long run, it&#x27;s bound to lead to corruption, nepotism, and abuse of power.</i><p>One could also make the argument that the &quot;teeming masses&quot; have no idea how a company like FB should be run.<p>If you went strictly by percent ownership, I imagine the people who would actually control FB would be institutional investors.  The usual party line around here is that the founders know better than those sorts of people, and I tend to agree with that in most cases.