[dotty-]

I'm sure I'm missing something, but I feel like the main reasons to choose cloud over self-host are availability and bandwidth. The data center is probably more reliable for uptime than your home. If neither of those are your problem, then I suppose you should consider segregating the network that machine is running on from the rest of your devices in your home. So your server can't connect to your TV in the living room or something, for example.

[PaulHoule]

Even back in the 1990s I had so many friends who were obsessed with the idea of running a web site from a server at home.

For most people their internet service is not that fast... If people like that got their wish they would wind up praying that their web site never gets on Hacker News, or they will after the first time it does.

[jeroenhd]

In an age where gigabit upload speeds are no longer impossible to attain I wouldn't worry too much about uplink performance. Sure, this is a regional thing, but if you set your website up right you can serve more than you'd expect with just 100 or even 50mbps up. An HTML page with resources doesn't need to be more than half a megabyte in size and 50mbps up still nets you full performance for 12 convurrent users per second, something many websites will never even need.

[wdfx]

It's not just about raw bandwidth though. Yes my domestic line has 20+Mbps upload but the latency and routing distance from some other domestic endpoint on the other side of the world is going to be terrible. I could go to great lengths to make sure that what I serve is the minimum amount of bytes but you'll be waiting multiple seconds for the connection to be established. Hosting the same data in a cloud or data centre would do the audience a much better service overall.