That's not website hosting, it's comment processing. Lambda is doing input processing, not serving a site. It's clever, although if I just wanted comments I'd just use disqus and spare myself the trouble.

S3 is hosting the site. S3 is awesome for static site hosting, in fact. I also use it.

Whenever I'm behind a corporate firewall, which is often, I find that a lot of third-party services like Disqus are blocked. At those times I would have preferred the site to host it's own comments. Generally speaking corporate firewalls block a lot of stuff by default and the sysadmins don't bother to try and differentiate.

I appreciate the conendrum but I don't think people running the sort of static blog you host on S3/github pages care about overbearing corporate policies.

If I bothered setting up my own blog, I certainly wouldn't spend a bunch of time setting up comments on Lambda just for my two corporate-firewalled readers when I can just use a hosted solution. That is, if I even cared about comments in the first place. There's just much more interesting things to work on, with and without Lambda.

Hosting your blog using AWS Lambda is over engineering and still not the cheapest solution. Host your static files on S3 or your CMS on Heroku and put Cloudflare in front of it. This solution comes with auto scaling, SSL, and HTTPS and is completely free

That link looks it's S3 doing the hosting and a lambda function only for contact forms, not hosting the blog on Lambda.

You're still paying only a few cents.

If you could host via s3, why not use GitHub.io and do it for free?

Everyone has their reasons, but if it is something I actually cared about I would prefer to pay money for it. Generally things that cost money, even 5 cents, have better uptime than "free" stuff.