Yes it can. If anyone reads "encrypted messenger" they're assuming only they and the intended recipients can decrypt it.
Rather, this is more of a debate of what the layman expects, and frustration with misleading marketing. A great example of this is the whole Zoom debacle; they claimed it was encrypted, people assumed it was E2EE, and got a lot of blowback for that to the point that they ended up implementing E2EE.
Another great example: a few of my friends were using Telegram for a while, and thought it was E2EE until I pointed out that only their "Secret Chat" feature is E2EE.
Even if that were the case, I'd still agree with OP's wording that it's a mostly unencrypted chat. It's encrypted at transit for the milliseconds it takes to reach the server. Once on the server, a third party has access to the plaintext until the end of time. It's a minimally encrypted chat.
And if the wording wasn't precise enough, context still matters more in this case. I'm sure everyone here knew what was meant, despite the familiarity with cryptography. Telegram claims your messages are "heavily encrypted" which is just false, aside from their very limited secret chat feature.
HN prefers substantive discussion, not nitpicking over semantics.
Rather, this is more of a debate of what the layman expects, and frustration with misleading marketing. A great example of this is the whole Zoom debacle; they claimed it was encrypted, people assumed it was E2EE, and got a lot of blowback for that to the point that they ended up implementing E2EE.
Another great example: a few of my friends were using Telegram for a while, and thought it was E2EE until I pointed out that only their "Secret Chat" feature is E2EE.