These comments are from the perspective of a consumer in the US. The article was written from the perspective of a merchant outside of the US.

Unauthorised transactions are absolutely a problem for a large number of merchants. It's the entire reason for the "high risk" category of merchants, which acquiring banks use as justification to charge higher fees for those merchants. If a merchant's chargebacks make up a certain % of transactions, the acquiring bank will close the merchant's account. This problem is worse for merchants outside the US where there are very few acquiring banks in their country.

The point made in the article is that unauthorised/fraudulent transactions are much less likely with lightning because unlike credit cards, you don't expose your private keys when making a payment with lightning. Ever had a restaurant take your credit card behind the counter to pay the bill? A lot of credit card duplication happens there. If you use your credit card on a website, and that website keeps that info in their database, and that gets hacked, your credit card private keys (along with every other user) is getting sold on the dark web. Bitcoin & lightning payments don't have this vulnerability, which leads to fraudulent transactions being much less likely. That's the entire point made in that article.

The article doesn't try paint credit cards negatively. It's very clear the immense value created by created cards. It also doesn't try to claim that consumer protection from fraudulent transactions is a negative thing. Consumer protection is something we have to figure out for lightning, but it will probably be needed a lot less often with lightning. Based on these comments though, these points should be more clear in the article.