Deciding which options should be added to social media pages and which should be removed is never easy.
While platforms are likely to take advice on whether adjustments are likely to go down well, getting things right is a difficult balancing act.
Take an apparently innocuous change recently announced by Facebook which has irritated quite a number of users.
The site had decided to remove the ability of users to customise headlines and descriptions of any links they post on their page or wall.
A spokesman said: “We’re working to find other solutions that allow publishers to share customized content on our platform, and we will have more to share in the coming weeks.”
On the face of it, the change is well-intentioned. Facebook knows that it is facing questions about what it is doing to stop the spread of “fake news” and believes that stripping back editing tools could help stop people with less than honest reasons for tweaking headlines on the latest BBC News or Guardian article.
But that doesn’t alter the fact that many users are frustrated that they will have far less freedom than previously.
Many social media teams have, up until now, taken advantage of the option to edit an intro or two when sharing content with their contacts.
In these circumstances it is not some nefarious plot to smear a politician or put a spin on a Brexit article, but a simple means of amending content to make it more relevant for their readers.
Imagine you are an accountancy firm shared a Telegraph piece about the Chancellor’s latest speech. It could be the case that the most relevant details to your particular clients are buried near the bottom and an edited intro is the best way to highlight this angle.
Now this is no longer an option, users are likely to want more details about what Facebook plans to do to ensure they are not disadvantaged in future.