I feel like I don't really like AWS and prefer self hosted vps or even google cloud / cloudflare more but and so I agree with what you are trying to say but Let me be the devil's argument.
I mean I agree but what you are saying is that where else are you gonna host it? If you host it yourself and then it turns out to be an issue and you go down then that's entirely on you and 99% of the internet still works.
But if Aws goes down, lets say 50% of the internet goes down.
So, in essence, nobody blames a particular team/person just as the parent comment said that nobody gets fired for picking IBM.
Although, I still think that the idea which is worrying is such massive centralization of servers that we have a single switch which can turn half the internet off. So I am a bit worried from the centralization side of thing's.
It was pretty frustrating to me when multiple services weren't working during the outage. I'm an end user; I don't use AWS, nor do I work on anything using AWS.
From my perspective, multiple unrelated websites quit working at the same time. I would rather have had one website down, and the rest working, than for me to be completely hamstrung because so many services are down simultaneously.
I mean I agree but what you are saying is that where else are you gonna host it? If you host it yourself and then it turns out to be an issue and you go down then that's entirely on you and 99% of the internet still works.
But if Aws goes down, lets say 50% of the internet goes down.
So, in essence, nobody blames a particular team/person just as the parent comment said that nobody gets fired for picking IBM.
Although, I still think that the idea which is worrying is such massive centralization of servers that we have a single switch which can turn half the internet off. So I am a bit worried from the centralization side of thing's.