Why is it an issue? Is it really so socially mandatory that founders get to maintain absolute control over public companies? The super-shares approach that Sergey took was clearly abusive anyway.
In a public company, no single ultimate beneficial owner should be allowed to have a controlling interest. Not even a large minority. IMO, less than 10% of the votes, tops.
Being public isnt some .magic designation.
It just means people are trading stock of some sort on the open market.
If people want non voting shares, why not let them?