Saying an API follows REST but doesn't implement HATEOAS (part of its definition), is like saying a database follows ACID but doesn't implement Atomicity. Or like saying a software is Open Source but doesn't allow use for commercial purposes.
Yet somehow for one of those 3 cases it became accepted to misuse the term that way ("[original meaning] but without this one constraint"), but if someone misuses the term for the other two cases then everyone suddenly cares and insist that people should use a different term to describe their thing.
My suspicion is that you did not read the great grand parent post before replying to it and are now engaging in evasive tactics in order not to answer this simple question.
I think you missed that, in my last comment, and _in every word of the article_.
You insist on a semantic equivalence that straddles two disjoint behaviours which incur vastly different cost profiles on publishers.
Fishing with dynamite might be OK to feed a village, but when any twat can kill all the fish for a hundred metres in order to eat just one, then it's useful to draw a distinction.
People who refuse to acknowledge a pertinent distinction are called "obtuse". One possible cause is ideology. I don't think you're stupid, just motivated.
If not, that’s fine, you just don’t care about a specific category of human users.