Ford has them. What it has meant for Ford-- and will probably mean for Facebook-- is that Zuck's heirs will control the company, for better or for worse.

The common justification for this is that for a media company (NYT) you want a person or family to take responsibility for the editorial content, not a pure profit seeker. Facebook has it both ways and typically denies it has editorial control.

IMO, the flaw of markets is that they are short sighted. Sometimes this allows states to outmaneuver them with a longer view. Current exhibit A: China. Historically state intervention has been worse in the long run. But who knows. If we went into a depression a lot of people may think state intervention is a better system, as many admired the USSR during the Great Depression.

Zuckerberg’s high vote shares convert to regular shares after he leaves or dies. His heirs will not continue to have super votes.

The USSR's main problem was not that it was socialist or communist, but that it was Russian. Russia is run by people who are adept at coopting revolutionary movements into a corrupt, authoritarian core. When left-wing libertarians say "true Socialism has never been tried", this is (along with China) what they are referring to.

The theoretical arguments against socialism (or, more specifically, centrally planned state production) given by Hayek is that pricing is information and markets are computers on that information, ergo changing the information gives you a bad result. This certainly applied to the kinds of production the Soviet Union loved to engage in, but there's no particular reason why it can't apply to capitalist enterprise as well. I mean, Facebook's headcount or market cap alone is larger than some actual nation-states' population or GDP.

Just like how the USSR was nominally socialist but practically engaged in exactly the same state-controlled mode of production as feudalism, today's corporate entities are nominally capitalist but practically feudalist. The medieval historians in the room would probably balk at me using the word "feudalist" to describe either, so to be clear, what I mean is "an economic system in which the majority of profit goes to landowners / platform owners / the state / etc". In this economic mode, companies can warp markets to their whims in exactly the same way Congress can.

Except, Congress is democratically controlled. Joint-stock corporations are inherently oligarchial in structure: control of the company is assigned based on how many shares you can afford to buy, so the company answers to the amount of money that has capitalized it, and not any other concern[0]. The "innovation" in Facebook's IPO was to go from internal oligarchy to internal autocracy - to install Mark Zuckerberg as God-Emperor of Facebook and largely depose the shareholder class that normally runs publicly-traded entities.

You'd think markets would have priced in this risk, but Facebook IPO'd at the peak of its hype and was able to get away with this. The funny thing about Hayek's distributed market computer is that it does not actually reach perfectly efficient price computation. If it did, you could crack RSA keys by placing a sufficient number of suitably complex options trades. Markets can put a bounty on fixing incorrect pricing information, but they can also just refuse to accept corrected pricing. Everyone rushing into Facebook stock counteracted the few people concerned about the ridiculously autocratic governance structure. And now that it's obvious that such a thing was a problem, it's too late to challenge it, because now Facebook has platform holder money. Zuckerberg can bribe the shareholders to not care about their lack of control.

The history of state intervention is very fraught, but there's one subset of interventions that has a better track record than most: those intended to stymie autocrats of trade. The state cannot correctly set prices better than a market can, but it absolutely can prevent other state-like entities from doing the same thing. Likewise, it would behoove the world's competition law and securities regulators to investigate and regulate the use of dual-class shares to retain control over companies you do not own.

Unfortunately, the current administration is unlikely to do anything about this.

Actually, to make matters worse, Texas is deliberately trying to pour gasoline on the problem by disenfranchising minority shareholders. I believe this was done specifically to give Elon Musk even more control over SpaceX, because Delaware made the mistake of actually entertaining a shareholder lawsuit over Musk's pay packet. If Facebook was an autocracy that bribed its shareholders into compliance, then SpaceX is an autocracy that says, "Fuck you, pay me". If there's one thing that gives me hope, it's that the markets are rightfully rejecting this obvious attempt at offloading Musk's toxic junk onto retail. But this is mainly because Elon failed to generate suitable hype to get the market to buy into his trash, not because markets are actually good at pricing in this specific kind of risk.

[0] In fact, this is part of why you see companies go to great lengths to fight unions, even when negotiating with a union would be cheaper. The shareholder class considers democratic control (one worker, one vote) to be an existential threat.