Summary: The framing of this is all wrong. It's all about innovation, competition, consumer choice, growth. It should be about liberation, user freedom, agency and sustainability. Sounds like it'll be a weak opt-in 'code' that just moves the deckchairs around while the ship is sinking.
Alok Sharma says dominance of a few big companies hurts innovation and curtails customer choice
Bullshit framing of innovation and customer choice. See The Maintainers for this fetishisation of innovation.
the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) will gain a dedicated Digital Markets Unit, empowered to write and enforce a new code of practice on technology companies which will set out the limits of acceptable behaviour.
A code of practice sounds a bit weak.
“But the dominance of just a few big tech companies is leading to less innovation, higher advertising prices and less choice and control for consumers. Our new, pro-competition regime for digital markets will ensure consumers have choice, and mean smaller firms aren’t pushed out.”
Why is everything in the language of business opportunity?
The code will seek to mediate between platforms and news publishers, for instance, to try to ensure they are able to monetise their content; it may also require platforms to give consumers a choice over whether to receive personalised advertising, or force them to work harder to improve how they operate with rival platforms.
Interoperability would be good.
“Only through a new pro-competition regulatory regime can we tackle the market power of tech giants like Facebook and Google and ensure that businesses and consumers are protected."
Pro-competition, such a poor framing. User freedom might be a better one.
It’s time to address that and unleash a new age of tech growth.
"Tech growth" - that's the last thing we need.