The problem is that now we have the Facebook/Zuckerberg example, wherein the founder managed to take outside money, and even go public, while still protecting his absolutely control of the company.
As with most public firms, each Class A share owned gives you one vote. However, Meta also has Class B shares that give the owner TEN votes each -- and Zuck owns a simple majority of those Class B shares. His voting power means he can do whatever he wants regardless of what the Class A shareholders want. (Zuck is also both CEO and Chair of the board.)
https://www.morningstar.com/sustainable-investing/how-facebo...
This structure is weird, but not unique. The end result is that Zuck got to have his cake (public money) and eat it to (keep absolutely control).