There has been some more recent arguments that Nero wasn't all that terrible, but more so disinterested in the job. Coupled with two facts that the article mentions (upper class Romans despised him for acting below his station; Christians despised him for putting them to death), it is no wonder all the records of his reign are incredibly negative. The people who hated him wrote the history. This is not to say he was a morally "good" person, but he also doesn't appear to been the tyrant he is made out to be.
Both "Nero: Emperor and Court"[0] as well as "Rome is Burning"[1] are great reads on the topic
He was also the final emperor of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, who traced a (mostly adopted) line of authority back to Julius Caesar.
Nero’s eventual successors, the Flavian Dynasty (who had no connection to the first emperors) had plenty of reason to delegitimise him, as a means of legitimising themselves.
Both "Nero: Emperor and Court"[0] as well as "Rome is Burning"[1] are great reads on the topic
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Nero-Emperor-John-F-Drinkwater/dp/110...
[1] https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691172316/ro...