I've done no such thing. Frankly, I've barely said anything.
You claimed I was angry I'm not.
I explained the context I was using things in. Or where I was coming from.
I don't expect people to agree with that context nor do I care if they don't.
There's a tendency online though for the last decade to minimize or downplay someone's opinion/experience.
The other logic I've seen used recently is "well this is what plain English means now" which may or may not be true but don't be surprised if people disagree or don't understand you.
The old 3.0 FRCS for example is a setting IMHO, a book on the Silver Marches, Waterdeep or whatever is a splatbook for that setting.
Sure WotC can claim what they like but an Icewind Dale book isn't any different really from the old regional books from 2E and 3E.
If they're changing the terminology or using marketing talk but if they claim a new setting that's going to raise a different set of expectations than a new region book.
This is basic marketing 101. Can come across as a bait and switch ymmv of course.
If they're using a new setting language the expectation would be for something that's not an existing setting.
Sure you can claim that's on us for that expectation. But they must be aware of that as well, if not there's something wrong.
If I can figure that out they should be able to. I'm sure it's deliberate.
If it is a new setting that's great IMHO even if it's not really my thing.