From reading this article, I get the suspicion that not only the parents have no idea about computers, but neither does the author.
If I have only a single quote to proof my point, I would choose: "His parents let him buy a PC that he put together himself. It had a big memory card and a lot of processing power."
Never have I ever heard someone who knows anything about computers describe his systems to have a "big memory card". If I type memory card into google, it shows the things you smash in a digital camera. In the 90s and 2000s you would put it in your Nintendo or Playstation.
My other favorite is his use of "Rollercoaster Tycoon" as an example for an excessive violent game (I assume he refers to that game. Its the only game I know that fits the description). Yes, it is possible in that game, that people die, yes it can happend by being ejected from a ride. It is how ever neither the focus of the game nor endorsed by the game mechanics.
Describing Anonymous as a "looser collective" seems somewhat unnecessary. What brings him to the conclusion? With the feeling of the article, I assume the reason is, that they are "hackers".
All in all this article reminds me on the old articles on how computer games lead to violence. Or old US articles on communism. Or my grandmothers take on the Beatles. Or roughly any topic that a group of people perceives to be dangerous while not understanding it even remotely.
All in all, I wonder what anyone should take away of this article. Should parents not buy their children computers with "big memory cards"?
Should parents be afraid if their children are using computers for gaming? Should they be afraid if they use it not for gaming? Should I be concerned to be confronted with a hacker if someone plays Rollercoaster Tycoon?
The guy seemed to have a tough live and his parents even more so. But this article will help no one to prevent anything.
Maybe the translation is the reason that I don't get the feeling he is quite at home with a computer.