prop·a·gan·da /ˌpräpəˈɡandə/ noun 1. information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

This definition is good enough, I don't see why it would need a redefinition.

Sure. But why does it seem like everyone here calls everything propaganda all of the time?

I think those who overuse the term ought to explain it in their own words.

Propaganda is media designed to manipulate your opinion, without going to the trouble of rationally convincing you to change your mind. And yeh, most of what we see day to day is propaganda. If anything, everyone's under-using that word.

How does propaganda differ from advertisement?

Advertisement is, at its most basic, the idea that there are things you'd want to buy if you knew they existed. So they inform you these things exist. And you have seen (a few of) these ads before in your life. You love those ads, and you find them more entertaining sometimes than the media they were encapsulated in. Most people will use trailers before the movie as their example, and they tend to respond positively to those even after having seen them they decide they won't go to that movie. But I remember looking through the backs of magazines just to see what was sold, or looking through classified ads back when those were a thing.

Most "ads" aren't these kinds of ads though, and seek to manipulate you. They at least are just a grift, and only want to separate you from your money instead of, say, supporting a war that doesn't need to be fought.

So buy comments on Israeli MK Facebook accounts? I think the only ones that would move any needle here is Meta profits on DAU and the company being paid to run the bots. You think your congressman goes to FB comments to decide how they’re voting?

Anywhere a voting public gets their information. Unfortunately that means FB comments. Could you answer my question though? Would it be ethical to counter an influence operation with your own?