Yes, they're much worse. TLDs are namespaces, not protocols or application level guides. Imagine: john@something.mywebsite ftp://something.mywebsite and so on. It makes no sense to indicate the desired protocol in the domain name. I know that for many people the 'web' and the 'net' are now synonymous but that's calcification and in the future that may simply not be true. I sincerely hope that the web is not the final word on connectivity.
I'd say if you want to email John that runs the "something" website, john@something.website is a perfectly fine email address... (as is ftp://something.website if you want to access the the something website via ftp....).
If something.website is actually not a website, then things are different. But we live with something.net not being an ISP, and something.com not actually being a commercial entity -- so I can't accept that the new TLDs are that much worse than the old ones? Not to mention the geographical based TLDs... is really "codewith.us" defined by being based in the USA?
Naming things are famously hard, and you can only have one TLD for a single "thing" (Not counting things like att.com for the commercial entity, and att.net for the ISP etc) -- if what you do is run a website (eg: medium, blogger, mypetproject.website) -- I don't see .website as being a particularly bad TLD.
All that said, I do agree with your last two paragraphs.
