It means that for strictly one receiver end-to-end encryption. When it's touted as a feature without explicitly stating that "all messages are sent only e2e encrypted and only to your receiver" we can't assume only the receiver is getting the message, it might be E2E encrypted for all traffic, between people using their own keys and nothing stops Meta from sending a different encrypted payload to their own servers with a key they have access to.
Facebook loves to use newspeak, wouldn't surprise me if they applied newspeak to what "end-to-end encryption" means.
So it's end-to-end encrypted, but your data is sent to some "ends" you didn't think it would be sent to? Well, if that's not a good reason to end your usage of WhatsApp, then I don't know what is...
How would you propose Signal -- or any app for that matter that provides end to end encryption -- encrypt the messages in the first place if they don't have access to the plaintext at some point?
Until there are cybernetic implants, the "ends" are the app running on your phones, which they control.
The quandary of what one allows to run on those implants sounds like a chilling sci-fi novel (chilling not because "but FAANG could read your thoughts!" but because people would absolutely still get them installed).
So you're nit-picking over the phrasing of the sentence, but should instead focus on the spirit/meaning behind it.
It's illustrated in their example below that they if you say you're having a baby, meta can send some type of distilled ad-keywords to its servers (eg `[mother, baby]` if it knows the user is a woman based on their name/profile, but probably more sophisticated than that). The message you sent is still technically end-to-end encrypted, though,
Facebook loves to use newspeak, wouldn't surprise me if they applied newspeak to what "end-to-end encryption" means.