Because if you don't like the idea you don't have to by the security.

And, as it happens, so many people own equities passively (through a managed mutual fund, or an index fund, retirement account and the like) and ownership of a company is so diffuse, these provisions have little impact in practice except against another large entity.

I'm not defending the practice -- I think it is a bad management practice myself and don't buy stocks with such provisions -- I'm simply responding to your comment.

I would argue that its publicly available information so why should it be? Anyone who knows this in advance and still buys the stock is making a (theoretically) informed choice to give up control for a share of profits (hopefully). It's all part of the risk calculation in investing.

Wall St. hasn't punished most tech stock prices for this practice (yet). Seems to be an unspoken rule that when it comes to tech companies, the founders know more than the street analysts.

Because there is zero reason why it should be. You can get this information before you make your decision to buy.

In a phrase, "because it's a free country".