It depends on how "working in tech" is defined.
If you work in IT at a Fortune 500 bank, insurance company, telco, manufacturing company, etc. then you almost certainly Know who IBM, SAP, Oracle, etc. are. If you work for FAANGMULA and adjacent SV companies you probably don't especially if you are under 35 or so.
I don't think it is even controversial to argue this so long as we can agree that a company cannot call itself a tech company simply because they hired a lot of programmers and are paying them decent salaries.
A tech company is a company that makes most of their money selling computer hardware and software products (and to a lesser extent, services and support for software and hardware products although it could be argued that is a different classification but with substantial overlap).
Notably, it has to be computers, not entertainment delivered via computers, or ads delivered through computers, and not industrials or pharmaceuticals or any number of other "technical but not 'tech' as in computers" industries. Tech is and has always meant IT, as in companies that are in the information and computers businesses. Where programmers happen to work, make the highest salary, or be the most highly concentrated has never mattered.
Have you read how much cash Meta has burned on VR? Apple on its R&D? Nvidia? Amazon and Microsoft and the rest on cloud (that requires R&D too, they can’t just go out and buy it).
> The business model is 100% a media and entertainment buisness model for most of the companies on that list.
Nonsense if you read any of the financial statements, except for Netflix.
Ask people about any large company in their own industry and they would know at least one of their products or services, and that includes Goldman Sachs, Dow, or Cisco.