You may be totally right and it was credential stuffing and the article may have been wrong, misleading, incompetent and stupid.

Nonetheless, you misrepresented what the article actually said -- the article raised both, the possibility credential stuffing (implied by Amazon spokesperson), and doubt about it (unspecified security expert, WiFi attacks).

Calling out an article for being misleading is not the same as misrepresenting it.

Yes they are different, and you did both: called it out for being misleading, and simultaneously misrepresented what it actually said (I've already detailed the reasons above, and others have quoted them verbatim to you).

The best before date of this conversation has clearly expired, so let's just stop here.

It's in Amazon's interest to argue that it wasn't a failing on their part.

I mean, being this susceptible to credential stuffing is a failing on their part, too.