Facebook stops drugmakers’ comment feature

Facebook on Monday stopped letting drugmakers disable the comments feature on their company pages, a change that prompted pharmaceutical companies to shut down some of their pages and update their social-media policies.

AstraZeneca, maker of the antidepressant Seroquel, took down its “Take on Depression” page and Johnson Johnson shuttered four pages devoted to diseases and conditions. Other companies revamped their commenting guidelines and said that they will more closely monitor the comments made on their sites.

“Any mention of a disease state or medicine on an AstraZeneca-owned or sponsored site is going to have to go under regulatory review,” said AstraZeneca spokesman Tony Jewell of the new policy. “We’ll take on a case-by-base basis and, in some cases, they (comments) will probably have to be taken down – which nobody wants to do, but we have to make sure we’ll handling these things appropriately.”

Pharmaceutical companies had, up until Monday, a Facebook option that virtually no other industry had – the ability to disable the comments section on its company page or wall. Facebook will still allow the companies to block comments on specific product pages, but most of the drugmakers said they didn’t have such pages.

The industry, which is regulated by the U.S. Food Drug Administration, had the ability to block comments on company pages on Facebook due to concerns that users would make comments about adverse effects or the potential off-label use of their products.

The change had been in the works for some time. Facebook, based in Palo Alto, did not say why it gave pharmaceutical companies this privilege or what prompted the social-networking giant to change the policy.

“We think these changes will help encourage an authentic dialogue on pages,” said the company through a spokeswoman.

‘Fooling yourselves’

Firms that prevent consumers from commenting violate the essence of social networking, said Peter Pitts, former FDA associate commissioner and president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, which is funded in part by the pharmaceutical industry.

“If you have a non-interactive page on Facebook and you define that as being in social media, not only are you fooling yourselves, but you are upsetting your constituency,” Pitts said “The message you’re sending out to the public is you’re afraid to mix it up in real time.”

Pitts said pharmaceutical companies need to embrace social networking as a way to build brand loyalty by educating – not marketing to – consumers.

But consumer groups had mixed responses, expressing concerns the information about what drugs consumers are taking could be used for marketing or to deny them health coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum, a San Diego nonprofit, said she was pleased patients could share more information in the comments section, but she had words of caution for consumers.

Free speech

“If it’s a pharmaceutical company and someone wants to make a comment, free speech must reign,” she said. “Comment all you want, but make sure it does not come back to be able to be used against you and by an insurance company or employer.”

Monday’s change prompted a number of pharmaceutical companies to take a conservative approach on Facebook.

Johnson Johnson dropped pages devoted to rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

“In these cases, decisions to close communities were difficult, but necessary. The new policy altered functionality in ways that changed our ability to sponsor some pages due to regulatory, legal and other considerations,” said JJ spokesman Bill Price in a statement, adding the majority of the company’s 60 pages enabled comments and were therefore unaffected.

Pfizer’s Facebook page was updated Monday to begin with this message: “Unfortunately sometimes we have to pull a comment from our wall. Here’s why.” The page goes on to explain the company’s reasons for removing a comment, which include making any reference to a product (made by Pfizer or any other company) as well as mentioning side effects or offering medical advice.

“We’re trying to be clear to people about where they can report questions or concerns,” said Pfizer spokesman Andrew Widger. “This isn’t about not receiving those messages; it’s about receiving them in an appropriate way.”

Amgen’s “Breakaway From Cancer” page went dark after the Woodland Hills (Los Angeles County) company, which makes the cancer drug Neulasta, failed to reach an agreement on terms with Facebook by Monday, spokeswoman Mary Klem said.

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry’s main trade group, said it was awaiting further guidance from the FDA. The FDA is developing guidelines, but did not provide a timeline Monday.

E-mail Victoria Colliver at vcolliver@sfchronicle.com

This article appeared on page D – 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Share and Enjoy

Ceglia contract didn’t name Facebook -court filing

Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:08pm EDT

* Paul Ceglia sued Facebook, claiming ownership stake

* Contract cited by Ceglia didn’t involve Facebook -filing

SAN FRANCISCO, August 15 (Reuters) – A contract at the
heart of a lawsuit seeking half ownership of Facebook does not
mention the social networking giant and has nothing to do with
it, Facebook said in a court filing.

Paul Ceglia sued Facebook in July 2010, alleging that a
contract he struck with Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg in
2003 entitled him to half the company.

Facebook, the world’s No. 1 Internet social network with
more than 500 million users, has previously said the contract
Ceglia attached to his lawsuit was a fabrication and has
characterized him as an “inveterate scam artist.”

In a court filing on Monday, attorneys for Facebook said an
authentic contract was found embedded in electronic data on
Ceglia’s computer but that document mentions only another
company, StreetFax.

If the case is still allowed to continue despite the
discovery, attorneys for Facebook said they will formally ask a
federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit.

An attorney for Ceglia did not immediately return a call
for comment.

According to Ceglia’s lawsuit, Zuckerberg told him if he
hired Zuckerberg to work on Ceglia’s StreetFax.com project and
helped fund the development of another project that became
Facebook, Zuckerberg would give Ceglia a one-half interest in
the project that became Facebook.
The case is Ceglia v. Zuckerberg et al, U.S. District Court,
Western District of New York, No. 10-00569.

(Reporting by Dan Levine; Editing by Gary Hill)

((dan.levine@thomsonreuters.com; +1 415 348-4726))
Keywords: FACEBOOK/LAWSUIT

(C) Reuters 2011. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution ofReuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expresslyprohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuterssphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group ofcompanies around the world.

Share and Enjoy