Dieter Van Esch

Dieter Van Esch's public commentary spans two seemingly distant worlds, refereeing and digital advertising fraud, but a single thread runs through both: systems fail or succeed based on choices, not capabilities. Whether he's discussing VAR protocols or Meta's ad approval process, Van Esch keeps returning to the idea that the people and platforms in charge of enforcement usually could do better if they wanted to.

On refereeing, following a two-day referee training session in Tubeke where he was present as VAR operator, Van Esch frames the tension between consistency and individuality as the central challenge. "Uniformiteit in besluitvoering. Iedereen wilt het, maar we willen ook (scheidsrechters met) ruimte voor (hun eigen) persoonlijkheid. Geen robots" . His proposed solution is not procedural but relational: dialogue, repeated over time, is what actually builds shared standards. He borrows a 2008 KBC slogan to make the point: "Praten werkt" . For Van Esch, uniform decision-making doesn't come from rigid rulebooks but from constantly discussing expectations and reviewing good and bad examples together, allowing everyone to reach the same destination "via eigen weg, met eigen voertuig" .

That same skepticism toward top-down enforcement, paired with a belief that better outcomes are achievable, resurfaces sharply in his Pano investigation into Meta's fake advertising ecosystem. Here the tone hardens considerably. Van Esch's core finding is that Meta's failure to stop AI deepfake scam ads is "een kwestie van niet willen, niet van niet kunnen" — a matter of not wanting to, not being unable to. He states plainly: "Dus dit is gewoon een industrie en die industrie wordt door, ik ga het luid op zeggen, meta ondersteund" ². This isn't framed as incompetence but as a business model: "Aan de andere kant heb je echt wel Meta die je aanmoedigt van blijf maar fake advertenties doen, vriend" ².

The investigation gave Van Esch concrete, damning detail to back this claim. He describes how Meta's own AI tools actively improved his fake scam ads, offering "20 improved variations of the fake image" and even altering a public figure's face into different women of varying ages to widen targeting ². His verdict is blunt: "Een fake beeld gaan we nog faker maken en Facebook helpt hierbij" ². He also points to the platform's custom audience targeting as a mechanism that punishes vulnerability rather than protects against it: once someone's data is captured through a fake contest, they get flagged as susceptible and repeatedly retargeted with more advanced scams.

Crucially, Van Esch treats the comparison with other platforms as proof that Meta's failure is a governance choice rather than a technical limitation. He notes that LinkedIn and Google both blocked the identical test scam ads that Meta approved, and that Meta's own ad review process showed no discernible enforcement logic, with some fake celebrity campaigns going live flawlessly while others were rejected only to pass later after minor tweaks ². This inconsistency, set against the deliberate personalization enabled by Meta's ad tools, sharpens his argument: the platform can act with precision when profit is involved, but not when protection is required.

Van Esch is also candid about the ease and scale of the abuse he's describing, and he frames this partly as a personal ethical statement. He ran his test campaign on a shoestring, "€150 budget," and immediately extrapolates the danger: "Maar wat had ik met €150.000 kunnen aanrichten?" ². He goes further, admitting his own capability to exploit the system: "Ik ben echt zeker dat ik heel snel mensen zou kunnen oplichten... Mocht ik geen etisch kompas hebben" ². This isn't boastful; it's meant to underline how low the barrier to large-scale fraud has become, and how much weight currently rests on individual ethics rather than platform safeguards.

Underlying both sources is a consistent metaphor of pursuit without resolution. In the Pano interview he describes the dynamic between fraud and enforcement as a chase without an end: "De vraag is altijd wie is het snelst, de stroper of de boswachter? En helaas zal de stroper zich altijd blijven opnieuw uitvinden" ². That same resignation to constant adaptation echoes his football commentary, where uniform standards are never a fixed rulebook but an ongoing negotiation that has to be renewed through conversation, review, and shared expectations .

The practical takeaway from Van Esch's public statements is twofold. First, he believes consistency in any decision-making system, whether officiating or content moderation, is achieved through continuous communication and comparison of concrete examples, not through rigid mechanization ("Geen robots") . Second, and more urgently, he argues that large platforms like Meta have the technical means to curb harm but choose not to when it conflicts with revenue, a claim he backs with direct evidence from his own ad campaigns and the contrasting behavior of LinkedIn and Google ². Across both contexts his central conviction stays the same: good outcomes require deliberate will, not just capability.