Acharya Prashant addresses the question of whether his organization is a propaganda machine. He begins by questioning the audience about their internet search habits, asking when they last searched for terms like 'liberation' (mukti), 'truth' (satya), 'salvation' (moksha), 'nirvana', 'Vedanta', or 'philosophy' (darshan) on YouTube or Google. He explains that because people do not search for these topics, videos about them will not appear in their recommendations. Therefore, the only way to bring this content to the public is through paid promotion. He states that this promotion is necessary because society is very fallen, and without it, this knowledge would be buried and no one would seek it out. He asserts that the day people become capable of recognizing what is right, they will promote it themselves, and then there will be no need for donations. In response to a questioner who asks if the organization is a form of propaganda, Acharya Prashant humorously accepts the label, saying, "I accept, I accept, I accept." He clarifies that the word 'propaganda' is very close to 'publicity' and while it has acquired a negative connotation of being misleading, the word itself is not inherently bad. He states he has no objection to being called a propagandist, as the organization's primary work is indeed propagation. He reveals that 80% of all donations are spent on this promotional work, with the remaining 20% covering all other expenses. Acharya Prashant reframes the issue, suggesting the real question is not whether they are propagating, but what they are propagating: truth or falsehood. He argues that it is a favor to society to show people something beneficial that they would not search for on their own, contrasting this with the constant advertisements for harmful products that people see without complaint. He points out that many highly educated individuals, including IITians and former employees of top companies like Apple, have left lucrative careers to work for the foundation at a fraction of their previous salaries, all to help in this mission of propagation. He concludes by asserting that if they are engaged in propaganda, it is for the good of society, and for that, they deserve thanks, not criticism. He questions why truth should not have the right to be spoken when falsehood is being shouted from the rooftops. He also playfully advises the questioner to be careful about the relationships he forms, implying that someone who dismisses profound knowledge as mere propaganda might not be a wise associate.