Meta has proposed reducing the cost of its ad-free subscription service in Europe as a move to silence critics, led by privacy activists, that the company wants to oblige users to pay if they want their data not to be exploited. As they put it, it is not what the spirit of the EU's new Digital Markets Act (D.M.A.) was.

In an effort to comply with the D.M.A., which demands that social platforms be providing users with a way to avoid sharing their personal data if they so choose, Meta announced a new offering that allows users to opt out of sharing their personal data and get an ad-free version of the app instead, at a price of $US10.88 per user, per month.

In this regard, the solution enables Meta to fully realize its revenue streams by sidestepping any financial implications of the new rules while offering a comprehensive data tracking opt-out to users, as stipulated by the new rules.

However, privacy campaigners argue that Meta's proposal actually betrays the G.D.P.R., and its protection against data capitalism by then allowing those businesses which have a lot of user data to monetize that indirectly, while also requiring people to pay if they want privacy.

To assuage this opposition, Meta has now offered to cut the cost of the program in half to an equivalent of $US6.50.

Which does not really solve the core problems of these complaints, but it may make it more likely that EU officials will be more accepting of this as a solution, given the barrier for avoiding data sharing will be much lower, and thus, much more affordable for Facebook users.

It is, however, still charging a fee for privacy. But would a lower fee be better? Would that then enable more EU users to opt-out, while also letting Meta continue making money from its users?

Really, Meta's probably not going to lose money on this renewed deal either way, given that the average revenue per Facebook user in Europe is generally less than $US6.50 per quarter.
It was $US7.71 a month in Q4 ($US23.14/3 months for the quarter), and it has been rising, but it seems reasonable to assume that Meta's revenue intake will be similar levels, even at this lower price point.
Which is probably why Meta originally proposed a $US10.88 deal, partly to factor in future earning growth as well. Yet in cold, hard cash terms, it looks less likely that Meta is doing much of a concession in this new pricing reduction.
It's rather more a symbolic gesture and might assuage at least some of the backlash against the plan. However, this still doesn't touch the core objections raised against the plan.

Which means it will be EU officials who are going to decide, which one is important-whether enabling Meta to follow the laws, ensuring their business interests remain the same or aligning closer to the basic principles of D.M.A., with making sure EU citizens hold a say over how data on them is used.

Which way it goes around seems like it is only going to be a win for EU users.