I think the distinction was between console games and PC games, which don't have auto-aim because the player is unlikely to be using a controller.

It's not a useful distinction since many kinds of games use player UX "cheats" like slight warping to physics algorithms, RNG weighting, etc. Most of these features act to take emphasis off of precise, low-level execution, or the pain of a string of unlucky results, in favor of higher-level strategy concerns, fast decision making, and expected values over time. There is an occasional chorus of "simulation purism" from some folks, but really, simulation elements are bulldozed in games constantly and consciously. The actual results are subtle and people don't take much notice when rules are bent, they just experience "fluid control" or "fair outcomes."

Auto-aim is only well-known because it's visually obvious when it occurs - the gun did not point in the direction of the camera.

Isn't console games and video games equivalent expressions? As opposed to computer games? (that is: I agree with you)

Computer games are also video games. That said, I don't think a correction to the original statement was really necessary.