To me most criticism of NFTs is reminiscent of criticisms of modern art. Very few understand the scope of what "non fungible token" means. There are PLENTY of use-cases for a publicly verifiable token issued by a 3rd party and owned by you, other than art, if you just use a little imagination.
Why might you want that? See https://www.eff.org/issues/icann
A generalized system for selling and validating ownership of digital things makes implementing ticketing easier than building an entire digital ticketing ecommerce site up from scratch.
Ethereum gives you digital wallets, ownership tracking, ownership verification, resale markets via 3rd parties or p2p, and digital wallets natively.
The possibilities are both horrifying and wonderful.
For example, Steam games can be traded user to user on the platform, but it's all at the whims of Valve. At any moment Valve could shut down, freeze your account, disable trading etc.
For example crypto art can be uploaded that’s a direct copy of someone else’s artwork. Copyright doesn’t care about the NFT at that point you don’t own the image.
For NFTs specifically, you still have to trust whatever chain and transaction says you actually own it. And there's nothing that stops someone else from also claiming they own the original except for the centralized statement of the originating party; nevermind the fact that digital bytes have no "original" anyway.