It is true that facts are not enough or else we would all believe more or less the same thing. People have to learn to think for themselves and that is a rare skill.

The best thing to do is educate the childern to think about the facts, Then make a decision.
Education is our best hope for changing the future.
"Live long, and prosper."

True, people will remain in extremely painful difficult situations rather than leave them for the same reason. People are extremely selfish. Some people may change their minds only if it directly negatively affects them.

Does Harari suggest an alternate approach that is likely to improve matters?

You seem to be saying that it is a "catch 22" situation. Let them stay within the false propaganda of their dominating group or likely alienate them if you try to provide them with accurate and truthful information. I am much more likely to say them something which conveys the thought: "Anybody can be fooled once. When that happens, shame on those giving you false information or deliberately deluding you. But, if you let them lead you astray again, shame on you.(fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me) . You have a mind. Use it or .lose it."

It is my belief that if a program is working people will accept it and keep it until something better comes along. This is a part of being a social group. If everyone did their own thing we would have a real mess and would not be able to function as a group.

The problem is that presently a sizable segment is using anectodal evidence (it may be loosely called that) to make arguments that impact policy and society. I agree with you that most people do not like a lot of facts. It does tend to make them feel inadequate and potentially stupid.

But here lies the problem. There are substantial problems that exist out there. It is necesary that those problems and issues get addressed, as they have far reaching implications for society and the planet. How do we to address them. We can rely on anecdotes, which are more often than not wrong, or we can rely upon empirical evidence.

The problem is how do we get the empirical evidence out to the lay person without overwhelming them with information or making them feel as stupid as they really are. It really comes down to a matter of marketing. Scientists hate the Madison Ave, marketing types (myself included). But scientists are lousy at marketing their information in a way that the lay person can intake and not freeze up mentally. A good example of that is the debate over global warming. Chances are that 90% of the scientific community is not wrong. The evidence is overwhelming. But the way that its been presented over the years (emphasize years), it has become a political football, as opposed being something that average citizen felt compelled to act upon and cooperate to find solutions. What needed is a version of the Madison Ave advertising complex geared to finding a way to make the scientific information palatable for the lay and uninitiated individual.