I actually agree with you - by definition of socialism, that's true, and very often we label things "socialism" when it's just "publicly funded services". In Canada we have single-payer health care - it's not true socialism because only some workers only hold power, but that's if they have a union (nurses).

But there's two points to be made:

1. Nothing about postal service, road maintenance, or trash collection bars them from being actual socialist programs - they could all be owned and operated by the workers, so the OP comment kind of stands, kind of.
2. I'm of the opinion that the meaning of words can change over time, especially as they get used more commonly in their derivation than their original definition. I think Socialism might be one of those things that is changing meaning. Even though we don't have true socialism, does a tax based government ever achieve "socialism"? We as tax payers will never own or control the thing being funded - the government does. They're just a middleman between us and services (private and public), and we'll never really have true socialism.

So you have the right attacking social services as "socialism bad", you have the left defending social services as "socialism good", and then you have others saying "none of that is socialism" and pulling their hair out. We're at this point where when someone says "socialism", it's actually talking about social services provided by the government, even if it's, by definition, incorrect.

Edit: we, as tax payers, should object to funding social programs that are just funding private businesses. I've seen local governments end their self-run trash collectors and instead contract out private businesses that do a horrendous job - they cut every corner possible, and it's pure corruption by politicians to funnel tax money to private companies.