The operative phrase is "There is no legal framework," so if the Chinese decide to build a moon base on your land you're out of luck because you never really owned any land on the Moon.
Any day now someone will try to sell an NFT of the Brooklyn Bridge. In other words, NFTs are just another vehicle to extract money from suckers.
Suppose we have a well-known photo of the Brooklyn Bridge. It was scanned twice and separate NFTs were created and sold. The data & hash is different because the scanner had different dust patterns on the glass each time. But visually - it's the same photo. And they were sold with the promise that they were unique in the world. Which is technically true (the math proves it), but a reasonable person would not think so.
A legit source like the NYC Museum of Modern Art would be trusted to sell NFTs that are unique and collectible. However "Bob's online NFT Shop" has a really nice website & sales brochure and so far has relied on his Terms of Use to quash any rumors of selling dupes.
That said, NFTs are no more and no less irrational than buying the right to have your name slapped on anything else. Plenty of people will give money to have their name placed on a wing of a building or a park bench or what have you. NFTs allow you to have your name placed in a public ledger. If you value having your name in some specific public ledger, more power to you. But yeah if you wouldn't pay some random dude named Jim to declare you "Jim's Certified Owner of the Brooklyn Bridge" why would you pay him for "Jim's Brooklyn Bridge NFT"?
For trying to explain NFTs to your family? Probably. If your family trusts you with technology, the best way to actually talk about it would be implicitly imparting your opinion as a passing topic. Something like "you hear about those chumps spending real life money on randomly-generated pixel art?" If they show interest, chase it down and indulge their curiosity. If they don't really care, cauterize the topic with a joke or a banal comment like "I didn't know the public could get any dumber!" In any case, I'd bet the last thing anyone wants to do is launch into a blockchain-based seminar when they really just want you to pass the mashed potatoes.
This isn’t really the salient point. You can buy and sell useful things with no legal framework (and people do all the time) and that doesn’t make it a scam or a scheme designed to sucker people. The difference is that NFTs have no inherent, tangible value. In that sense it’s more akin to something like baseball cards, or art. Things that have no inherent value, and are easily reproduced, but can be verified to be “authentic”.
They are currently being used for digital proof of ownership to digital memorabilia, but in the future expected to be used for real things (like licensing rights, representation of a gym membership etc).
They are legal (unenforceable or not is not the point), as much as if you wrote on a piece of paper in college to your roommate that you agree to answer, everytime he calls you on the phone and asks "Who's your daddy", with "Jeremy", is legal.
When you are buying a tweet, you're essentially buying a digital memorabilia. When you're buying Linkin Park's Mike Shinoda's doodles, you're buying digital patronage (as in, Mike Shinoda will always acknowledge the owner of the NFT as the patron of his doodle).
The value is that it allows for ownership of a specific asset that cannot be argued against. It is immediately accessible, communicable, and you can verify ownership of said asset.
Instead of making nfts for land on the moon, replace the asset with property deeds. And replace/automate whatever you can cost efficiently in the property deeds process and infrastructure with blockchain.
Look back at this comment in five years.