> Well seeing that if AWS went bankrupt and couldn’t afford their servers, I assure you that the federal government would step in seeing how many government ser

> Well seeing that if AWS went bankrupt and couldn’t afford their servers, I assure you that the federal government would step in seeing how many government services are hosted both in the commercial, GovCloud and secret regions not to mention how many financial companies are hosted there. Maybe. Worldcom was eventually bought out too. That does not mean you can assume that there will be no disruption to services, or no loss. And that addressed one of many potential risks. Unless you can guarantee that there are no such risks whatsoever, the point I made stands. That point was simply that if you rely on a third party's durability level, then whatever that level is, the durability of the data from your point of view is lower, because there will always be a risk that your access to the data is removed either permanently or long enough for the eventual recovery to be irrelevant. And so if you actually need and care about that durability level, you'll need multiple providers. Which you probably should at far lower reliability levels anyway. I did not suggest it'd be simpler to use another cloud provider, so I have no idea why you're bringing that up as it's entirely irrelevant to the argument I made.