Those recommendations weren't based on strong evidence, as the honest ones state.
Now we have actual evidence of how masks works in the actual world - and it turns out to be a lot weaker than hoped; so we should look for better alternatives. That's how science is supposed to work - people make hypothesis and then test them, and then update their world-view based on that.
Whereas your position seems to be that isn't a big deal - regardless of whether it was the same or contradicted what was previously believed.