They're investing in the entire economy. If you believe that super voting rights for minority owners is a systemic weakness in the economy then this is absolute

They're investing in the entire economy. If you believe that super voting rights for minority owners is a systemic weakness in the economy then this is absolutely a problem for S&P500 index fund investors. Likewise it a relevant concern if you're only relying on the economy for you (and your dependents) to obtain food and shelter. If on the other hand you believe the minority with special rights are actually superior managers of the assets and totally deserving of super voting rights to keep the assets out of the hands of others e.g. management consultants and bankers who've got no frigging clue then you'll take the opposite point of view. Both points of view are reasonable and need to be supported with evidence by those arguing for them. The idea that you can't have a point of view by any means other than exercise of the decision to invest in facebrick or not is a little simplistic. Systemic issues are a thing to consider carefully. The global financial crisis did happen, banks did have to be bailed out. (The decision to pursue prosecution and to exempt ratings companies and such from ramifications /may/ have been moral hazard and adverse selection but whatever). Total de-regulation of the financial system has a history of ponzis, tulips, south sea, etc. etc. that caused vast misery well beyond those who were direct victims of the frauds. It's worth remembering that if the financial system genuinely collapses millions will starve to death. The decision to regulate to protect against systemic collapse has been hard won. Now should super voting rights be regulated away? I'm kind of less interested in a power struggle between funds managers and Zuck, seems we should treat that as noise on making a good policy decision. But just what is that good policy decision?