Yep. The way social sites encourage you to share your content via their websites and only their websites is not good for longevity of content. It will disappear over time.
I do think you need your content in a share friendly way in order to get any visibility anymore, but you also need to keep a 'non-social' version of it (linked from the shared version) if you want it to stick around for the long haul and maintain link integrity.
I still pay for web hosting, and if I ever get a solid weekend again I intend to put up a much simpler, almost early WWW homepage, and Archive.org friendly, to store my projects and thoughts on, that I plan to keep up as long as I'm still kicking (the domain might eventually change, I haven't settled on that yet).
I used to want to show off my web developer skills and make fancy pages, but that just makes me never get around to finishing and/or updating them. There's a reason busy people often have bare-bones websites, and you can still make a simple website look decent with HTML and CSS.
> I used to want to show off my web developer skills and make fancy pages, but that just makes me never get around to finishing and/or updating them. There's a reason busy people often have bare-bones websites, and you can still make a simple website look decent with HTML and CSS.
100% agree.
As a UX designer (and only a hobbyist developer), I decided the way to make my personal site easy to read was to use simple, semantic, classless HTML with a super basic responsive stylesheet. Just the good, old classic document layout for me, nothing fancy. I actually use a minimally modified version of this stylesheet: https://github.com/programble/writ