3 ms·
Isn't is cheaper, easier and safer (from a "network takedown" perspective) to host your sites on S3? I don't think anyone, not even the NRA, is powerful enough
by intrasight 10y ago
Isn't is cheaper, easier and safer (from a "network takedown" perspective) to host your sites on S3? I don't think anyone, not even the NRA, is powerful enough to take down AWS.
- TallGuyShort 10y agoOnly if it's 100% static. Most websites are going to want at least some metrics, maybe a few forms, etc. And I suspect it's not THAT much more difficult to get AWS to do a more targeted takedown. I mean YouTube's pretty powerful, but they'll notoriously cave to a DMCA takedown pretty damn enthusiastically.
- intrasight 10y agoThe article specifically said these were all static sites.
- gcr 10y agoGoogle Analytics works fine and dandy on static sites hosted on S3.
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 10y agoIn that scenario Amazon would possibly suspend your entire account, or suspend all access to S3 (if you didn't respond). Or even if they only suspend the bucket in question, unless you're splitting apart your customers into their own buckets, the same issue applies where other customers go down because of one customer. I think it's better to work with a smaller company in these kind of instances. Larger companies like Amazon are going to just do whatever it takes to make the complaint go away. They don't want trouble.
- intrasight 10y agoI think just the opposite is true. Amazon has more reputation as risk and will go through proper due process. Small companies probably don't even have that conversation internally.