This is a link

Both of the above interactive elements will open a new page if you activate them. If you [ctrl|cmd]-click or middle-click, in some browsers at least, that page will open in a separate tab. I could have added a target attribute to either to make the new-tab behavior the default.

This is a different type of link
This isn't a button or a link

All of the above interactive elements, on activation, will cause new content to appear on this page (in browsers that support details/summary). All three approaches are used in real websites for tab or accordion layouts.

There is no fundamental, functional difference between a link and a button on the web, as far as the actions they trigger. Buttons and links can both be used to modify the current page or to fetch a new one. And you don't need something hacky like a javascript: URL to do it.

So it's no surprise that most web developers/designers see nothing wrong with styling a link to look like a button, when it is a standalone element (instead of a linked phrase within paragraph text). Buttons are also sometimes styled like links, to make them look interactive-but-less-important.

However, we still need to be aware of the important differences in UX between links and buttons:

These differences may be arbitrary. They may be unrelated to the primary interaction. But they are real. And they're a pain in the arse. Sometimes a button-link will cause a page refresh. Sometimes it won't. Sometimes I can right-click on a button-link and grab the URL. Sometimes I can't. Sometimes I can control-click so that it opens in a new tab. Sometimes I can't.

And there's nothing about the visible UX—with default styles or with real-world styles—that tells me which is which.