That's a valid criticism of APIs that think "it's not SOAP, so it must be REST", but this is close enough to REST that it seems pedantry to claim it isn't.
So all apologies to Roy Fielding, but through success, he has lost control of his terminology. This is what people mean by REST today.
That reminds me of what happened to "Object Oriented". First, Alan Kay coined the term, having something like Smaltalk in head (emphasis on messages, and a strong dislike of unchecked side effects like setters and the assignment statement). Then the term was subverted, and we got C++ and Java (emphasis on classes, and a near-total disregard for the problems of pervasive side effects[1]).
My point is, we should be careful before we corrupt a term. Doing so corrupts our perception of the concept itself. And if it turns out the corrupt concept is less help than the pure one, too late : it's already popular.
So all apologies to Roy Fielding, but through success, he has lost control of his terminology. This is what people mean by REST today.