zlacker

The server that is providing the content exists already. That's a sunk cost.

>>otterl+(OP)
"setup and execution".

>>chrisj+e1
What serious operator of a service isn't budgeting time to implement and operate critical maintenance functions?

>>otterl+Y6
Me for one. Adding an auto-updating IP address blocker to my personal blog site would probably cost more than setting up the whole site did in the first place.

>>chrisj+d9
We're talking about sites that make their living via subscriptions. They should have a great interest at blocking archive.is, which is, by the way, the only service that can reliably bypass many paywalls. Clearly whatever they're doing is not easily replicated.

>>mr_mit+jl
> We're talking about sites that make their living via subscriptions.

Sorry, but I wasn't. I thought that was clear from "can't afford the cost of keeping up-to-date with the Google IP list".

> They should have a great interest at blocking archive.is

Agreed, and many should have a budget to suit. So I conclude archive.is has put a lot of effort and cost into its defence. And all for free to us, the users.

>>chrisj+d9
Have you actually priced it, or are you just guessing?

Are you doing regular patching? Automated restarts? Watching for security breaches? Or just praying it stays up forever?

Otherwise, respectfully, I would not classify you as a "serious operator." Your site could live or die, and it would be all the same to you. Or, you've handed it to a third party for management and they don't offer much in the way of resilience or stability.