Yes, its different in that’s its a change in propaganda. As you said. But that’s nothing new. The propaganda changes as the agendas change. What’s not new under the sun is institutions compelled to propagandize. That’s was my point.

Any system of power or influence, state, corporate, etc. will eventually veer towards the slipping in/introducing of propagandas. If they don’t from the jump, which they often do. That’s another of my points.

It’s a comment fueled by the OPs post with a title ending with “Schools will become propaganda machines.” As if they weren’t already. Which I obviously think they are / have been for a long time. Some just don’t like the changes in propaganda or amount of propagandas. Hence why I say maybe best we generally can do is argue which propaganda may be useful and which are not. For instancd, maybe we feel having children pledge allegiance to a state through the symbol of a flag is useful for the cohesion of a populous via fostering national unity, patriotism, and loyalty to the republic (for U.S). Or maybe we find it to be gross indoctrination, too religion/coded, and fundamentally un-american in original spirit.

And I don’t think propaganda is define as simply a “slanted perspective”. Propaganda is communication of info/ideas/etc that is deliberately and primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda. And it’d often very systemic. I may have a bias or slant towards an opinion, but doesn’t make it propaganda. I think there are more characteristics needed.