[thirdsun]

If it's static, which is really recommended for content like this, I'd opt for Netlify (we love it for our projects) or a comparable service. A traditional shared host will likely run into trouble once you reach a significant traffic spike, which is exactly the moment when you absolutely don't want to experience an outage. Netlify, even on their cheapest 10 bucks/month plan, will let you use their CDN network and offer performance that is far ahead of shared hosts, let alone database backed websites.

[uuuuiojhcxxbgg]

Why not use (free) cloud-flare for static websites?

[iancarroll]

Cloudflare stands between a website and a user; you still need somewhere to host it.

[Xylakant]

amazon s3 buckets are a perfectly valid way to host static websites.