They are of course talking about the same thing. But all descriptions of functions in Socionics are simplified. I've always read the description as hints rather than as definitions. It's not that hard to understand that someone might associate Se with bullying (or force) looking at some examples of people with strong Se.
To me Jung is an obvious LII-C but all of his descriptions of functions are much more advanced than socionics, not just the Se. Socionics has problems with other functions also, like Fe (in my opinion). The powerful thing with Socionics though is that because there is so much redundancy (because of the relationships etc) it is probably the easiest and best way to learn Jung's typology and get connected with the real phenomenon that the types are.I personally think it was because Aušra Augustinavičiūtė and many of the other developers of socionics were Se devaluing and thus understood Se wrong. On the other hand, Jung is almost always thought to be a ILI or IEI, so he viewed Se in others, more or less, positively.