So what is supposed to change based on that? Pay more for better fraud investigators? Accept a lower burden of proof like stripe et al do? What's the take away here?

If you want a TLDR; style take-away, the last paragraph is a good place to start:

>"Responsible actors in civil society have a mandate to aggressively detect and interdict fraud. If they do not, they cede the field to irresponsible demagogues. They will not be careful in their conclusions. They will not be gentle in their proposals. They will not carefully weigh consequences upon the innocent. But they will be telling a truth that the great and the good are not.

The public will believe them, because the public believes its lying eyes."

Ahh, reminds me of the classic appeal.

"If you don't do <fascist thing> now, the real fascists will take over!"

This is not a reasonable characterization of the text. The proposed action is not at all fascist.

Is auditing state-subsidized service providers fascistic?

From this piece, it seems like the state auditor detected some fraud, but there was little follow-up from either the state or 'responsible journalists', so the sensationalists came in with a (predictably) extreme take, after which everyone started slinging mud. The sensationalism could have been forestalled by better auditing by the state, or journalism by large-scale media. I am not sure what part of this is fascist.

Except the article does mention a whole bunch of people who were investigated, arrested and convicted.

So again, now what? Are they supposed to hire more investigators? Work harder? Require less evidence? What part of the system is supposed to change and how?

to aggressively detect and interdict fraud

is fascistic, because being aggressive hurts those that want to do it right but are not trusted. an aspect of fascism is to not trust its own people.

Posts like this make it clearer to me every day why Trump won twice

can you explain that please?

as far as i can tell trump is all about not trusting people but aggressively enforcing arbitrary rules no matter the cost. exactly what i am criticizing.