> The companies with dual shares seem to do well

The scenario in which dual-share structures can be a problem is if things don't go well. Specifically they greatly limit the shareholder's ability to protect their investment by removing the CEO. That's why it's considered poor governance.

> Google did the super control way before Zuck did.

Fair, I just remember the backlash to the FB arrangement more I guess. At least in the case of the Google Class B shares control was split between the two, but still, in my opinion, wildly inappropriate for the purpose of public markets.

I may have an antiquated view of how the capital market should work given how long I’ve worked in the space, but I’m strongly of the opinion that going public should be synonymous with surrendering private/individual control of the company. The company is effectively spreading the risk of failure, and I think the average investor doesn’t appreciate or understand the voting vs non-voting differentiation.

Then again there is a monstrous amount retail participants in the market don’t understand and frankly the SEC has done (in permitting these sorts of listings) a poor job of executing on its mandate.

I think there is a fundamental of what do well means in this context.

Well, you probably need to be doing extremely well to get to IPO in a situation where that structure is a possibility.

It's not really surprising that companies that print huge amounts of money with fairly little need for funding do well.

Only if you think the definition of doing well is shareholder returns. I think it’s time for a different way of evaluating corporations, like their overall benefit to humanity. In that lens Meta is not doing well.