That's a retcon. People used Blogger because it was more convenient than setting up Apache and PHP on a webserver of their own. Linux nerds for whom doing that is no big deal are an infinitesimal fraction of everyone who blogged.

why does it have to be such a big ordeal? A blog is pretty much just a static site.

Is it unimaginable that someone uses a HTML editor like microsoft word or something to write a blog and then copies it into the folder of a static web server? I'm sure it would be way simpler if people had the time to figure out P2P and the associated UI, it's not fundamentally super complicated versus client-server.

Just the idea of having an always-on computer anywhere in your home excludes probably more than 80% of everyone who has ever written a blog. IPv4 is not why people use hosted services.

> Just the idea of having an always-on computer anywhere in your home excludes probably more than 80% of everyone who has ever written a blog.

I have yet to meet someone who turns off the router at night, although I have heard of such people.

Then if you think about it, TVs, washing machines, etc. people are too lazy to turn them off, and OLED TVs even require being turned on while not being used.

He obviously meant a general-purpose PC, the type of thing you might host a blog from.

so when you can have a TV for movies, why can't you have a server for a blog?

Because you have to have a TV for movies (unless you want to watch them on a small laptop screen)[1]. Whereas there is very literal practical reason to self-host a blog.

[1]: Yes I know cinemas exist but they are very expensive and don't show content on demand.

So you can.

This argument is a different one compared to the one before.

What is complex is ongoing work. You have to watch for and apply security patches forever.