Except we are actually discussing a technical legal matter. When discussing a technical legal matter, definitions are important. You can say you're upset about metadata collection, but that is a distinct issue from wiretapping. Trying to justify imprecise terminology on the grounds that "people are upset" is simply a tactic for muddying the waters. If your point is good, you can be precise about it.
Most of us are not lawyers. If a lawyer is being imprecise with legal terminology, then they need to be called on it promptly. If however a non-lawyer is misusing terminology but their meaning is clear, correcting their terminology is just derailing the conversation.
If somebody says "That man assaulted me; he punched me right in the face" the correct response is not"Actually that's battery, not assault"
(I don't know [or care] if that 'correction' is true or not, but it's one that's been repeated online ad nauseum.)
You also don't care if the punch was warrantless or not. Here, we are discussing warrantless wiretaps, which has a specific meaning. You don't get to pick and choose which meanings you discard (wiretap) and which meanings you keep (warrantless) because goalposts can be moved forever, and communication becomes impossible.
Also, lawyers (ie me) are free to speak as private citizens. I could go on at length about the legal distinctiveness of content and non-content interception, but whether it does matter is different than whether it should. I don't see metadata as fundamentally different in practice than content. Scotus may say otherwise, but I am under no obligation to agree with them.
