This seems a bit inappropriately toned. Plenty of businesses care about this, as it de-risks things if you know you can self-host if necessary.

Yes, sure. But the difficulty about monitoring is not the hosting per-se, but hosting in different datacenters throughout the world abd keeping all these services up.

My monitoring should not show "just down" if users from location A can't reach it but everyone else can.

How many web-services out there are actually geographically distributed? Most companies just host everything in us-east1

Uptime monitoring services? I think most of those I tried (and I tried many in the past weeks).

I never understood the "de-risk" things angle. Is the idea that you'd self host if the service went under?

Yes, or a new company could post on Reddit, "would anyone like this service?" and spin up a replacement. Probably not worth it in this instance, but I imagine a lot of people sleep better at night knowing that Postgres is available to self-host, or from a variety of cloud providers.