The main figure in the article is using hyperbole to show how exploitative he thinks the working conditions are. However, despite being exploited, he is not locked up in a dormitory and forced to work because his "employer" stole his passport, or anything like it.

It's entirely possible that actual slaves are forced to do this work, but the conditions in the article aren't slavery.

There's no description of slavery or even ambiguous conditions. He was a poor Pakistani kid earning a pittance online to help his family, working from the family home, and able to leave for another employer. That sucks, and the companies should pay more, but they're exploiting terrible wages in poor areas rather than coercing their workers.

The difference is important: we should avoid diluting the meaning of slavery, because slavery does exist and needs to be called out as effectively as possible.