This here is true. 5th amendment protections only protect you from SELF-incrimination, and in some ways, your spouse. It does not apply to protecting others. Though some have tried arguing that they are protecting themselves, which then requires some form of admittance of them having been committing ANOTHER crime, which doesn't look good to a jury.

This has been known for a while, though I don't know if your typical layperson was aware until recently. People need to remember that any access a company has to a device, so does LE with a warrant. Even moreso once you get into federal resources and FISA courts.

Bitlocker isn't secure, for several reasons, that I won't get into on here.

Also, using biometrics on a device, and your biometrics unlock said device, do wonders for proving to a jury that you owned and operated that device. So you're double screwed in that regard.

It's something you know vs. something you have. That's how the legal system sees it. You might not tell someone the pin to your safe, but if police find the key to it, or hire a locksmith to drill out your safe, it's theirs with a warrant.

It's interesting in the case of social media companies. Technically the data held is the companies data (Google, Meta, etc.) however courts have ruled that a person still has an expectation of privacy and therefore police need a warrant.