NFTs as they're being used is silly, but to me the fact the article makes a brief mention about "digital ownership" makes me realize why I agree with Proudhon on the absurdity of property rights. Basically, everyone needs some kind of means of subsistence. In Proudhon's day most people lived by subsistence farming, so land was an essential element to that. And thus, the contention was what happens when all the land is owned? Do those born afterward become diminished by the need to purchase or rent land? Or is ownership contingent on the possession of it as in its direct use. Meaning that someone who inherits some title to land has no valid claim if they can only use/consume it? Today, people still need land to subsist but not in the same way that people did in the 19th century. As such, the whole idea of title ownership whether it's an Ethereum smart contract or an old fashioned title from the government it needs state enforcement as without this element it's worthless. Thus, the real problem with NFTs and just title/absentee ownership is the fact that it attempts to deprive people of subsistence rights whether in the physical world with using state violence to prevent people from finding shelter, food, medical care, and so forth. Or whether it's non-physical such as trying to make it illegal to distribute content ranging from images of art to information regarding circuit designs and chemical formulas for essential medicines. So to me, NFTs as certificates of "authentic ownership" seem like another example of the absurdity of title ownership. Your piece of paper or JSON file does not entitle you or others to absentee ownership. Use and possession are the only true means of ownership and absent that you must lean on the state to enforce it and the only means to enforce is through violence of various means (physical, structural, financial, etc).