It's not really; I've never heard someone say that, in fact. The nature of propaganda is to make everything uncertain, and then everyone is frozen and nobody has done wrong.
Lots of disputes within democracies consist of both sides implicitly claiming their position is "more democratic". E.g. how much power should the US president have over US bureaucracies? Some say that because bureaucrats are "unelected", the president should have more control. Others say that too much executive control is authoritarian. In both cases, the nature of "democracy" is what's [implicitly] at stake.
>propaganda
* I speak truth to power.
* He is exercising his right to freedom of speech.
* They spread propaganda.
I don't think the phrase "propaganda" is meaningless, necessary. But this reinforces my point from earlier, about how our social contract could use more simplicity and less ambiguity.
Indeed, it's quite easy! If I agree, it's brave truth-telling. If I disagree, it's propaganda.
Of course, but that's distinct from propaganda vs non-propaganda. A foreign actor can secretly pay for a marketing campaign that spreads the truth. A scientist can make an honest mistake and spread a falsehood.
>we can tell the difference with reasonable accuracy.
Depends on the claim. Suppose I tell you that exactly one year from now, at your current location, it will be raining. Is that true or false?
And there is much propaganda - especially now - used to sow hate, violence, and division.
We need clear language for each form (how many are there?). And I think we need a more serious word than 'discombobulation' - for one, it describes the effect, not the cause; and for another, people won't take the issue seriously.