I have a theory that could explain the two sides:
Does the "change everything and explain nothing" side have the tech manuals, Fact Files, BTS books, and do they read MA articles, or do they just watch the show and aren't interested in any background or connections beyond the current show or even the current episode? And does the "change nothing and explain any changes" side value these tech manuals, fact files, BTS books, and MA, and don't just watch the show like they would watch a sitcom, or Baywatch, or a crime show, where connections, continuity, etc. are far less relevant? Perhaps for people who don't care about continuity and details and connections, and having things just simply fit with the rest of the universe, it's just popcorn entertainment. I get the impression that we don't like unexplained changes because they contradict not only the previous shows, but all these books as well (the Encyclopedia, the Fact Files, the Chronology, everything the Okudas and Sternbach et al. wrote with great effort and dedication), and updated editions that include all the changes would be very messy.
I don't need an in-universe explanation for why Starbase 1, stated on screen in Discovery to be 100 AU from Earth, is shown still orbiting it. I know that the reason is that the VFX crew screwed up, why would I need to craft convoluted explanations about an Oort cloud object whose ice structures incidentally happen to mimic the coastline of the St. Lawrence River or that the length of an AU might have been redefined by the 23rd century, when I can just recognize it as a mistake and disregard it?
Of course, speculation about the hows and whys is perfectly okay. It can be a fun pastime. The problem is when the "I wonder why" becomes "It needs to be explained."
Starbase 1 is a mistake, not a deliberate change in continuity. There's a difference between those.
Your side says "it doesn't have to be explained", but then also says "it cannot, must not, should not be explained". There's also a difference between those. Perhaps... apples and oranges?
Star Trek is not a historic documentary and it isn't a factual depiction of actual future events.
"This isn't just silly science fiction. Star Trek is a period piece, it's an invented period, but you need to observe the traditions, and the continuity, and the styles."
"We're very lucky that people pay such close attention. It shows they love the show."
- Mike Okuda
Only if there's a good reason. They don't just things willynilly.
What was the good reason for the Disco Klingons and their ships, swords, interiors? What was the good reason for a compressed Enterprise with slit, angled pylons?
Like I said to another person above, apples and oranges. It's one thing to replicate '60s sets, costumes and filming models for a one-off 30th anniversary homage. It's an entirely different thing to create an entire show in the 2010s-20s that takes place entirely in that era and is broadcast in Full HD. Exact reproductions of 60-year-old production assets simply don't stand up to scrutiny in a modern production, no matter how often certain people keep pointing at fan films that were created for a very specific set of viewers anyway. A modern audience simply wouldn't accept an exact reproduction of the TOS assets as a realistic extrapolation of 23rd century technology.
If one-offs (4 of them) compared to whole shows are apples and oranges, then so is Data's one-off year comment, the one-off Trill design, and the one-off Kirk middle name compared to deliberate and persistent changes following persistent continuity.
Who said anything about "exact reproductions"?
