It's simple and demonstrates that the Nash equilibria of a game can deviate from the strategies that produce the best payoff. I think most pop sci corollaries people try to draw from it are overreaches at best.

I would agree that Prisoner's Dilemma is an exceptional case, except that it can be used.

Someone in a position of power may choose to set up a prisoner's dilemma - let's say, between you and your colleagues - to disadvantage you both, while giving an illusion of choice.

Reality is complex, so we use simplified models in theories. But then the results from the models don't generalize back to reality very well. I think the tradeoffs are well known, and I don't think there's any magical solution.

I agree, the stag hunt / assurance game seems way more relevant to real life situations.