The moral argument isn't presented in the piece, so it's not really fair to ascribe it to the author. He's saying it doesn't matter. They're making a "poisoned well" argument that there will be no functional divide between "good" and "bad" ads.
The moral argument is indeed presented in this piece with the quote and inclusion of John Gruber's tweet.
The moral argument is presented in the piece, sure, but it's not agreed with, if you manage to read to what he's actually saying.
The title of the article is "Ethical Adblocking", and you still think no moral argument is being made here?
I'm presenting arguments based on what the author says, and you're presenting arguments based on the title and embedded quotes. All one has to do is read the piece. It's really not that hard!