It's the great irony of digital media. Copying data is accurate to the bit and is preserved "as-is", but in practice, it requires someone to maintain servers, to care about it. To separate out what is worth preserving.

We hot-linked to all those image hosts because we couldn't imagine them disappearing.

Archive.org had incredible foresight and if it didn't already exist, I'd call such a project a pipe dream.

The technology is still in its infancy unfortunately, so there's no way the web could have been based on it, but I think content-addressing is the long-term play. If I click a link, there are some cases where I want the server to respond with a fresh response just for me (e.g. a website showing the weather). But often I just want whatever content was linked to (e.g. a webpage explaining a math content). In the latter case, it would be nice if the link had a hash of the content in it, and 3rd parties could host copies to keep the link working even if the original operator stopped existing.

It's pretty difficult to avoid without very significant tradeoffs, though. The closest is content-addressable peer-to-peer networks, but these still rely on someone keeping the information around, and they struggle to scale anywhere near as much.

> Webpages dying is probably one of the biggest design flaws of the original web.

I'd say it's one of the biggest design flaws of the current web, what with more and more content hidden behind paywalls, increasingly restricted WAFs, and rendered client-side via convoluted JavaScript.

Archiving and mirroring of old-style websites, delivered as static HTML, is simple and straightforward. 20 years from now, most web content from ~1996 to ~2015 will still be accessible, but much of today's web content probably won't.