Talk:Infomediary

"Jurisdiction" comment
Hello 12iiks, I'm trying to understand the intention of your addition of the statement: "The jurisdiction surrounding the concept of infomediation remains unclear. It is difficult to legally define the responsibility of the infomediary, which is by definition neither the host nor the publisher of the content it makes available." and in particular the relevance of the citation provided.

Specifically, you added that comment to the paragraph discussing the "information fiduciary" -- might you have intended to add it to second or third paragraphs about the infomediary instead? Also can you flesh out your addition with regard to the question you raise about the "jurisdiction" of the infomediation concept as it's not very clear to my reading -- are you talking about existing statutes or regulations and the whether such roles are defined? That could certainly be an interesting discussion point that would deserve more exploration (e.g., would an infomediary be a "controller" or "processor" or perhaps even an "agent" of the data subject). But your comment, I feel, would benefit from a good bit more explanation.

Finally, could you be more precise with the citation? The actual cite is throwing an error currently. But more importantly, citing an entire book without some pointer to a page, a passage, or some more context to the relevance, would reduce the confusion and add to the clarity.

I hope you will take this as constructive criticism and appreciate your interest in improving this article! Rayeverett (talk) Rayeverett (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)