The terminology is peanuts, though. Why begrudge someone for explaining an idea as they truly understand it? What seems more important is the ability to get someone else to do it. If someone is not getting something, should we feel bound by standardized methods of passing on information and practicing, placing all the burden on the student to make them work, or is it not better to continually reframe the issue until it does manage to convey the subjective experience of an idea (which may defy any and all terminology), if our goal is in fact to pass on ability?
Well, let's use that same logic to argue that almost anyone can (and does) teach their impression of Aikido as "explaining an idea as they truly understand it". They "get people to do Aikido" and wear black culottes... who can tell the difference? And so on. Right now, I'll guarantee you that there are a number of different takes being taught by a number of different people as "aiki". Are they all teaching the students what could convincingly be taught as passable jin/kokyu skills in classical martial-arts? They can't be. So yes, there's a reason to try to mesh terms with the accepted definitions.
Remember the old "Teacher Test" I did that everyone made too much noise about? What happened was that after listening to some self-styled "Xingyi" teacher drone on an on about himself for 4 hours, in desperation I asked him to place his palm on my (right) chest and hit me without pulling his hand back. So he did. And it was very obvious that after all the talk about "internal", his ability to hit was still mostly shoulder derived. Not dantien/hara. That immediately tells us about all the rest of the stuff he does and logically, he doesn't really do justice to a so-called "internal" martial art. Would you suggest that his take on "internal" was a valid one?