Historians rarely comment officially (as in, through serious reviews and academic articles - many Say Things on social media because we want to complain) on the accuracy of historical fiction as an end in and of itself: it's more frequently done to analyze the way that history has been used and altered, and why. The ur-example would be the "white mythic space" of movies set in medieval and early modern Europe - this setting is regularly depicted as being populated entirely by white people, typically white people of the specific culture that's being depicted, with no indication whatsoever that there was migration of various peoples to, from, and within Europe. Historians do not bring this up simply to say, "this is inaccurate as there were individuals of African descent, Jewish communities, Romani, and others in England at the time this movie is set, silly filmmakers," but to point out that (as you note) audiences learn from seeing something in film over and over again. In the case of the mythical all-white Europe, this is not only problematic because it is teaching a wrong fact, but because it's enforcing a viewpoint that the West is "naturally" all white, that there is something dangerous and new to migration into the area by people whose many-times-great grandparents weren't born there. Here is an excellent paper on the same topic but in the setting of World War I: Race, Battlefield 1 and the White Mythic Space of the First World War.

Another issue might be gender identity, gender roles, and sexuality. In Premodern Rulers and Postmodern Viewers: Gender, Sex, and Power in Popular Culture, a text that analyzes depictions of queens in historical films and tv shows, we find a lot more discussion of the attempts of many filmmakers and writers to integrate the modern understanding of feminism into historical settings featuring powerful or oppressed women, and how the integration frequently causes its own problems:

In spite of the creators’ attempts to invest these histories with feminism, female power is more often than not portrayed as underhanded, inimical, and connected to liberated sexual desires. For example, April Harper demonstrates that in medieval film the forms of power tradition- ally available to queens—such as family influence, patronage, and diplomacy—have been tainted by an association with ‘unmanly’ villains and come across as manipulative and dishonest. In her essay, Urban explores how Elizabeth Woodville’s transformation into a gifted witch reproduces medieval misogynist stereotypes of female power and how the efforts of ambitious women to gain access to power in The White Queen often result in harm to their families. Michael R. Evans and Armel Dubois-Nayt observe a conflation of female sexual drive and political ambition in their respective chapters, and the tragic ends of Mary Queen of Scots and Juana of Castile suggest a persistent belief that lust in a woman leads to destruction.

In this context, it is much more worthwhile to look at Self Made's inaccuracies for what they are saying, rather than simply calling them out. What is the purpose of having Annie tell Sarah that she can't sell her products because she isn't pretty and doesn't have "good hair", adding "some fabricated colorist feud"? Well, our media doesn't tend to focus on the struggles of women of color very often, and when it does it typically focuses on their struggle in a white man's world - colorism is very rarely mentioned, let alone focused on. (Bessie (2015) features one scene where the title character hits back against colorism by reversing the paper-bag test; there's an off-hand mention by an antagonistic character in Boardwalk Empire that Michael K. Williams is doing well for himself in his nice house with his "high yellow" wife.) By centering the miniseries on an exaggerated feud, the production team allowed the issue to be explored with depth and nuance while also allowing both/all of the main players in the story to be women. Given that there is also C. J.'s discomfort with Sarah's success, prompted by his father's criticism of his masculinity in being supported by his wife, as well as the episode where Booker T. Washington dismisses both Sarah's and Annie's business skills and where the male activists are shown to be relegating their wives to strongly subordinate positions, it seems clear that the production team wanted to deal with issues of inequity within the African-American community across the board.

At the same time, there is room to criticize the decision to focus on a feud on the grounds that it recreates the well-known, sexist, fictional/reality show dynamic of two women trying to tear each other down instead of working together or at least peacefully co-existing, especially given the subplots in which Sarah and A'lelia's husbands are seduced away by Annie and Dora. (Especially since C. J. was actually out of her life long before the point at which he's shown to be demanding a divorce to marry his girlfriend.)

I could complain about the costuming representing ca. 1914 most of the series even though it largely took place in the decade leading up to that, but why bother? Sure, it annoys me because I think subtle changes in costuming are an underrated way to show time passing in film, but it doesn't actually - in this instance - have any resonance with the themes or problems of Self Made. As a historian, I'm going to focus my ire on media where inaccuracies are added to make a false point, such as when corsets are said to make women faint, or where the inaccuracies create unnecessary ugliness. (Or, okay, when people are praising the inaccuracies as accuracies. Or where I can use criticism as a platform for teaching what is historically accurate.)

if so many details and inaccuracies are going to be present I’d rather the films not be produced

Every piece of historical fiction has so many inaccuracies, from the material culture to the sequence of events or depictions of actual historical personages. You are calling for the entire genre not to exist, essentially. Which is fine, if you want to do that! But you should do so while being aware that even the movies you have liked in the past have been extremely flawed, accuracy-wise, as well, and would also come under this pronouncement.