I've noticed a lot of worlds described as our world, but with one change, like "our world, only gold is replaced with lead," or "like our world, only there's mutants that can see the future." The questions usually start from that and end up at a few broad sweeping questions like "how would religion change?"
I have trouble with these questions because there are so many answers. It's not like changing one thing locks the entire reset of the world in stone. It also usually sidesteps the issue that, when you change something, everything changes a little bit to adapt to it. I fear we are doing a disservice by answering because it seems like the individual is electing to World Build themselves in a corner by trying to draw straight causal lines where they don't actually need to be. In many cases, the answer should be "whatever you want, as an author," because, even if you pick a particular a priori answer to their question, its easy enough to build a world to match that answer.
My first instinct is to identify them as what they are: idea generation. There is too little information to really constrain the question. However, this is the WorldBuilding forum. Trying to provide good helpful answers to questions that are right on the edge of idea generation seems to be a worthy endeavor. Given how often questions are framed in that form, it makes sense to try to help those questioners.
Does it make sense to try to form a consensus on how to deal with these questions, to shape them as a community?