As long as you pick one definition and stick with it, you can define propaganda how you want. But this is not what people do. They juggle two definitions of propaganda: one broad where anything used to convince you of something is propaganda, and one narrow where it by definition is deceptive.
It's the original "no true Scotsman": there the broad definition (Scotsman=person from Scotland) is used to argue for the narrow definition ("real" Scotsman=good and upstanding person from Scotland)
The traditional meaning of the phrase is that it is not neccessarily information of a misleading nature but is propagated to advance a particular political aim. In that older definition, propaganda can be true or false, misleading of correct.
The current connotation to me seems a result of propaganda from authoritarian states (nazis in germany, communists in the old communist bloc) and the presupposition that the propaganda they pushed was misleading and/or false.
> information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a particular cause, doctrine, or point of view.
Which I think most people consider bad. If the information is true and not misleading, it would be considered educational or informational.