But how certain is the future of WayBackMachine, when disaster strikes, all your links are dead. On the other hand, the original links can still be read from the url, so the original reference is not completely gone.
I don't feel comfortable sending a bunch of web traffic to them for no reason other than it being convenient. The wayback machine is a web archival project, not your personal content proxy to make sure your links don't go stale.
They need our help both in funding and in action, one simple action is not to abuse their service.
I hope the author of this piece considers donating and promoting donation to their readers: https://archive.org/donate/
The INTERNETARCHIVE.BAK project (also known as IA.BAK or IABAK) is a combined experiment and research project to back up the Internet Archive's data stores, utilizing zero infrastructure of the Archive itself (save for bandwidth used in download) and, along the way, gain real-world knowledge of what issues and considerations are involved with such a project. Started in April 2015, the project already has dozens of contributors and partners, and has resulted in a fairly robust environment backing up terabytes of the Archive in multiple locations around the world.
https://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=INTERNETARCHIVE....
Snapshots from 2002 and 2006 are preserved in Alexandria, Egypt. I hope there's good fire suppression.
https://www.bibalex.org/isis/frontend/archive/archive_web.as...
When scoping out the size of Google+, one of ArchiveTeam's recent projects, it emerged that the typical size of a post was roughly 120 bytes, but total page weight a minimum of 1 MB, for a 1% payload to throw-weight ratio. This seems typical of much the modern Web. And that excludes external assets: images, JS, CSS, etc.
If just the source text and sufficient metadata were preserved, all of G+ would be startlingly small -- on the order of 100 GB I believe. Yes, posts could be longer (I wrote some large ones), and images (associated with about 30% of posts by my estimate) blew things up a lot. But the scary thing is actually how little content there really was. And while G+ certainly had a "ghost town" image (which I somewhat helped define), it wasn't tiny --- there were plausibly 100 - 300 million users with substantial activity.
But IA's WBM has a goal and policy of preserving the Web as it manifests, which means one hell of a lot of cruft and bloat. As you note, increasingly a liability.
In practice, this would likely involve recreating at least some of the presentation side of numerous changing (some constantly) Web apps. Which is a substantial programming overhead.
WARC is dumb as rocks, from a redundancy standpoint, but also atomically complete, independent (all WARCs are entirely self-contained), and reliable. When dealing with billions of individual websites, these are useful attributes.
It's a matter of trade-offs.
Mirroring a website isn't so hard that you need a service to do it for you. Your browser even has such a function; try ctrl-s.
https://github.com/pirate/ArchiveBox
https://github.com/pirate/ArchiveBox/wiki/Web-Archiving-Comm...