The amount of Rust code using unsafe is a major issues for a language build around safety. And yes, the same argument can also be made about Go having a unsafe keyword.

The fact that there exist crates to detected the usage of unsafe in dependencies, shows that its a rather liberal used keyword. Geiger comes to mind.

Unsafe in a language like Go is very rare, mostly because people do not program at such low system level to get the max performance out of it.

Rust code with unsafe: 1.7M Go code with unsafe: 400k

and for comparison, Go has about 2.3x the amount of repo's. So Rust has about a 10x more usage of the unsafe keyword.

The same thing happens any time a message board confronts a professional term of art. The same thing happened with "zero trust", where you'd have long wooly debates about what was meant by "trust", but really the term just meant not having a conventional perimeter network architecture. Sorry, but the term as used in industry, by the ISRG, and in government guidance refers specifically to vulnerabilities.