> Except for shareholder value

Well, it depends. Zuckerberg has controlling interest in Meta even though he owns a minority of it (<15%) because of its dual share structure. Meta will do what he wants it do.

Google has a similar structure.

Semantics. I'd replace "shareholder value" with "making a chunk of people insanely wealthy".

It's not semantics. Those founders have more voting power than their actual share in the companies, so they don't have the same incentives as regular shareholders.

the founders are also shareholders so they are still maximizing shareholder vlaue

Zuck's other financial and personal interests could compete with his money in the company. Unlikely at 1:1, but it's more possible the higher his vote multiplier is.

If meta cared about shareholder value they wouldnt be spending 10 bil a year on VR. Decisions at meta are made with marks interests in mind

Isn't that more about the value of the shares they personally received as part of their compensation package?

Not even really true anymore. It’s all about “stakeholder capitalism“ now, which boils down to management being able to prioritize whichever stakeholder it wants to in any given situation.

Shareholder primacy may not be perfect, but it at least constrains management instead of giving them completely free rein.