The point is...
...you diversify your network footprint.
There is nothing (but practicality, of course) preventing you from spreading your internet activity across VPN endpoints in different jurisdictions.
Invincibility is something that only fools (and RDBMS vendors trying to get a foothold in the OS market) try to trade in. The best you can, and should, aim for is to redress the imbalance that is created by the aggregation of our day to day activities onto a single medium.
I've always known people can legally or illegally snoop on my snail mail. I know there is nothing I can do to make a paper envelope invincible. This has always been so, and because of this I manage what I send.
People can legally and illegally break into my home. I know there is nothing I can do to make my home invincible. Knowing this, I manage what I leave lying about.
Law enforcement - and criminals - have been increasingly advantaged by our aggregation of our private lives onto online services and all we should expect from VPNs (and the use of diversified online services) is the ability to fragment this aggregation.
Getting angry at VPN for being imperfect (or online service providers, for that matter) is ridiculous. Similarly ridiculous is "educating" users that one approach (or service) is the panacea. It is incorrect, it encourages the politically-expedient notion that anything that supports privacy makes kiddy-fiddlers and jihadists "invincible" against law enforcement, and it denies our innate ability to manage (and be responsible for) our own risk profile when given usable tools and an understanding of their benefits and limitations.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
