When I like it, it's called "influence". When I don't like it, it's called "manipulation". At least, this seems to be the way it's commonly used.
I have a coworker, who largely does not listen to any argument I make; from my point of view, this is because I am younger, and he perceives me as less experienced because of my age. However, other coworkers are able to deliver the same argument to him, and have him listen to that argument. In that regard, they have influence over him, whereas I do not. Yet, nobody is attempting to manipulate anybody (in the sense of lie to, or attempting to get someone to hold a belief that the manipulator does not themselves hold or knows to be unsound).
From his point of view, you aren't a credible source, so he thinks you are trying to manipulate him (he doesn't like it). But he respects the other coworkers so they can influence him (he likes it). It's not just about the message, there are a lot of factors in play.
*Not saying I agree with the parent's definitions. Just that they could still fit your experience
"information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."
Leaving aside the issue of bias, I think we can agree that if a particular piece of information, designed to mislead the public, is widely disseminated, that is propaganda. Widely disseminating facts, or privately disseminating misleading information is not propaganda.
Propaganda is intended to change a belief or a course of action through a substantial amount of disinformation, i.e. lying repeatedly or omitting many facts. Thus the intended audience doesn't have to be big (no wide dissemination) as long as the lies / omissions are numerous and show deliberate intent to deceive.
For example, a man can conduct a propaganda campaign lasting years and make many misleading statements toward only his wife. However, it'd be a stretch to refer to a single isolated lie as propaganda, even if it were intended for an audience of millions.
I suggest the dividing line between persuasion and manipulation to be akin to 'assent' vs 'consent'. Persuasion requires agreement, the informed, equal, and voluntary meeting of two minds, not a un/mis-informed compliance or subservience of one mind toward another. The latter could never be called persuasion.