There's a narrative about conventional corporations being driven by a legal mandate to maximize shareholder returns. In general this narrative is true.

However, in the specific case of "Big Tech" it appears not to be. The founders of the respective megacorps all appear to have majority voting rights in accordance with their stock ownership.

The upshot of all this is that the decisions of "Big Tech" aren't really coming from some unknown hazily-defined share holders in "The Market" [does obligatory hand-wave]. They're coming primarily from the personal preferences of the founders. So they can't claim that the share holders made them do things against their better judgement. It's on them, personally.