Really, this article is years behind. Anshe Chung hasn't been relevant in the pantheon of virtual land barons for ages.

I don't really understand the point of pharmaceutical companies even having Facebook pages. I get enough of their advertising shoved down my throat on TV every day, I certainly don't want to be friends with them on Facebook. As far as government regulations go, it's sad enough that these companies have to disable wall postings to suppress people from talking about things like negative side effects, but I find it even sadder if people think the only place to have these discussions is on Facebook pages in the first place.

I mean, what's the train of thought supposed to be, here? "Oh good, now that I can openly write on a pharmaceutical company's wall, I can finally let everyone know about these horrible side effects their medication caused for me. There was definitely no outlet for this prior to now, and it comes just in time, because these unreported side effects are so bad it almost certainly warrants a governmental investigation!"

I don't really see it as any different from being forced to open a locker that is suspected to contain a murder weapon. If I argued that under the fifth amendment, I am not obligated to open that locker because it would be self-incriminating, how would that hold up in court (I don't actually know the answer, but I would assume this is precedented and has an answer)? They aren't asking me to give them the key to the locker, they're just asking me to open it. I suppose the only difference is that it's much easier to force your way into a locker than it is to brute force an encrypted drive, but even then, the concepts of privacy and the fifth amendment should be the same, yes? And I suppose you could also argue that the password itself might contain keywords or some such which are incriminating, but by the same token I could have something incriminating etched onto a key.

The FCC thoroughly investigated Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction because when it happened, the skies darkened, thunderous roars of a hundred thousand demons echoed across the countryside, a rain of blood flooded the land, and the most unspeakable horrors imaginable swept the United States into the most ridiculous debacle of overreaction in recorded history. What was the FCC supposed to do, just ignore the millions of Americans crying foul about their psychologically damaged children? No, we -demanded- they do something about it, because Janet Jackson's apocalyptic misdeed was more important than Clear Channel or SiriusXM.

The FCC is making smart moves with this and, recently, the net neutrality topic as well. They're asking for opinions, because they ultimately serve the American people. If they are indeed "useless", it's through no fault of their own, it's because the people they serve made them that way.