Sure, but its a hit piece. Its not even hiding that its warping relevant details in a disingenuous way. For instance, they say he was "involved in a cyber-crime ring". What this means is that he had a CDN that a cyber crime ring used. Something the article explicitly states farther down. Then there is the "he was active on a discord where cybercriminals hang out". Sure, but he works in security and its common to be on such boards to understand the nature of security threats. Doesn't mean there aren't real things in the article. He did get fired (at 17) for messing up at his first job. But that's about it. That you took the summary at face value...that's on you. But I get it, you have no idea what someone in computer/ops security actually does in their job and he's on the other team so he is bad.
So, to summarize: he was fired for cause and also assisted cybercriminals.
Where by "messing up his first job", you mean, "Intentionally leaked proprietary data in one of the stupidest ways possible, was caught, and apparently didn't learn anything from the event."