I'd argue that's ultimately still a political usage, to create a motte-and-bailey arrangement whereby large corporations with more bureaucracy and less accounta

I'd argue that's ultimately still a political usage, to create a motte-and-bailey arrangement whereby large corporations with more bureaucracy and less accountability than most governments are given a pass based on the merits of small nimble actually-private companies. Google was for sure a creation of that private sector and its virtues. And even though it had some public handouts (like university research funding and the corporate liability shield), it had many private aspects - actively involved owners, a small number of employees, who were in touch with the mission, having to compete for customers, etc. But applying that term to the modern day Google as if there is a strict dichotomy of public-private seems like whitewashing the actual reality of large corporations having much more in common with government than with small businesses.