I don't assume that. Actually, I assume the opposite - they are more likely to see some propaganda for what it is than I am. But I do think everyone has blind spots, and I do think propaganda is effective, even if you know it's propaganda. Even with a small group of people believing propaganda, peer pressure and the desire for humans to conform with the actions of their in-group can wield significant influence.

In the same way, I have no doubt that many citizens of the USSR or China or Nazi Germany or even the US can see through the propaganda targeted at them. But I don't think anyone would argue with the idea that propaganda was and continues to be effective for a significant (and important) portion of the population.

I would also think that, say, a historian who is an expert on propaganda, or an economist who is an expert on labour relations, a political campaign manager, or a company marketing manager would be able to more accurately and quickly identify propaganda when they see it. Some people can see through certain propaganda. That's not controversial.

You start off saying "they are more likely to see some propaganda for what it is than I am", then go into 2.5 more paragraphs how that's not really true and they are susceptible.

I find Amazon worker susceptibility to propaganda to be a little silly. And I'm talking about "fake news" propaganda, not promotion of a true, but pro-Amazon viewpoint.

Most folks I worked with a lower-paying, manual labor jobs had zero illusions about their employer. They aren't getting the "bring your whole self to work" and "help us change the world" bullshit that the big companies feed their white collar workers. It was very clear that the employer looked out for themselves (e.g. profit) and workers were easily replaceable.

I think people who claim they were manipulated need to give the workers a little more credit.