By that logic it's more like an argument for disabling JS entirely - there is nothing about this that's specific to ads, and the reporter has speculated that it was placed by an attacker and only disguised as an ad.
An adblocker doesn't impact usability (in most cases, it improves it significantly, through lower page load times and less space occupied by non-content), but prevents the vast majority of malvertising. Blocking all Javascript blocks all of them, but makes the modern web nearly unusable.
But they cannot ask my conscience to open myself up to security issues because otherwise it impacts their income.
(note that I have read the rest of the thread and am aware that simply running an adblocker wouldn't have prevented this exploit)
(second note/disclaimer is that I do run µBlock, for the personal reason that I feel they also cannot ask my conscience to open my attention to energy-draining distractions because otherwise it impacts their income)