His point might be that no adblocker gives a true sense of insecurity while the adblocker might give a false sense of security, therefore the 1st choice would f

His point might be that no adblocker gives a true sense of insecurity while the adblocker might give a false sense of security, therefore the 1st choice would force the user to be more cautious. If that's the point I can understand it, however it should imply foul play by adblockers, which I believe would hardly happen since the most popular are fully open source and thoroughly audited (for example Ublock Origin, Umatrix and Privacy Badger all are FOSS).