Here is the thing both parts are true.
Systemd really does suck. It is a lot of attack surface, it makes a lot of things that would be enjoy some security or at least blast radius control thru heterogeneity systemic risks. It turns a lot of simple failures into complex nightmares that are difficult to untangle. It offers no discoverablity, if you don't know how the hip bone is connected to tailbone you are not getting there by looking around the system you'll have to read the docs.
90+ % of what it does was already handled just fine by existing solutions. So for all of those bloggers systemd has a zero value proposition. All suck no blow.
However....
If you trying to run 1000s of containers at scale with piles of micro services on each, actually systemd does give you some useful things. If you are are PaaS platform and you want to support a wide variety of work loads and make them controllable thur you management portals etc, well having some similar OS level control plane for your control plane tools to plug into is kinda of big deal, because otherwise you are looking at specialized code for each OS and maybe each version of OS you want to offer support for.
Instead we get this dynamic, one distro picks up systemD, the PaaS guys pick it up and say hey cool we will support systemD and tell the other distros get with the program or be left behind.
So bloggers are right if you are managing handfuls of servers the old fashion way via ssh, or just admining your own workstation - SystemD SUCKS
If you are some SiValley tech bro looking to piss away a few million VC dollars, systemD or something like it is a necessity and uniformity and adoption level is a way more important than it being any good. It is just the latest iteration of nobody ever got fired choosing IBM, exact same thinking and underlying justifications.