[_xivi]

> Running a webserver on your phone incurs all the same issues

Huh, what? The issues I mentioned proceed from using services you don't own or have power over. How can I suffer from such issues on my own device?

> out of range or your phone might be off

and? If the owner is ok with that, where is the problem? Are people not permitted to walk because a car is faster?

[troupe]

Yes if none of those things are problems then it isn't an issue. Just that there aren't fewer issues with having a website on your phone by a company that doesn't have a core business of letting people serve http from their phone vs. having it hosted somewhere by a company where it IS their core business.

[jakelazaroff]

What if your service provider cuts you off?

[_xivi]

I change the provider?

Are you arguing I'm not allowed to host because a service can cut me off, so I need to open myself to more services that can cut me off?

[jakelazaroff]

No, I’m saying that trusting [Internet service provider whom you don’t control] to keep your site up is pragmatically identical to trusting [web hosting company whom you don’t control] to do the same.

[somsak2]

right, just like you can change the provider of your hosting.

[_xivi]

Why not work instead on reducing the number of roadblocks and services that you need to manage, rely on, hand over your rights to, and entrust them with your personal data?

I don't know about you, but that seems to me the logical thing to do

[nomel]

Convenience of course.

[_xivi]

Great, that means we don't disagree

Because the entire point of the article is that hosting on mobile should be indeed more convenient and accessible.