I do not think it is an issue about (re)branding. Each of those things that people refer to as confusing (.NET Framework, .NET Core, .NET Standard and now stand

I do not think it is an issue about (re)branding. Each of those things that people refer to as confusing (.NET Framework, .NET Core, .NET Standard and now standalone .NET) are distinct and separate parts. I think it's more that .NET spent the best part of its existence Windows-only and to transition to being cross-platform requires some hefty changes that necessitated clearly defined stages (windows-only .NET Framework, then early-stage-cross-platform .NET Core 1/2/3 and then end-result .NET 5/6+) and a clear way to write library code targetted such that it can be used by certain cross-sections of those stages (.NET Standard). They've managed the transition well on the technical side of things - as you can see there are plenty of people who are happy with the end result. But it's clear from comments that pop up here that they've really missed the mark when it comes to actually describing the intent behind the whole project, because a surprising number regard it as just an unnecessary exercise in rebranding.