I've found that people generally get upset when the change means that whatever they were enjoying in the past as innocent fun was really "sinful" in some way--racist, sexist, phobic. The natural response is to defend yourself against an accusation, right?Fair question! If, though, you are trying to corner me into confessing that I somehow find disability to be an "acceptable" identity but have an aversion to recognition of others, I should say you are wrong. I am instead referring to the backslap-free manner in which this was implemented, and I'm getting closer to why it seems different.
Other changes were made in response to perceived wrongs. First some public criticism (often warranted, I might add) is lodged against this or that outdated, offensive attraction feature, and then Disney rushes, embarrassed, to remedy the problem with fanfare. In this case, there was no initial outcry, as far as I know, regarding insufficient inclusivity, yet an oversight was quietly noticed and corrected.
Now, the Jungle Cruise revisions—totally deserved, way overdue, and well done—were brought about with some fanfare but are nonetheless unobjectionable, so maybe I'm not any closer to an answer after all.
Perhaps it's a matter of to whom Disney is responding when making such changes. Perhaps some changes are made after sincere evaluations of the attractions, while others seem only to be made (insincerely?) in response to broader politics beyond Disney.
Again, just a feeling. If anyone's read this far into the post, thanks for letting me think it through.
However, the change to Small World doesn't mean that the old ride was bad, it's just better now. You don't need to do any soul-searching if you enjoyed the ride before the change, and nobody is going to tut-tut you about it.