> You can distribute less popular websites with more used ones to avoid losing it?

So long as this distributed protocol has the concept of individual files, there _will_ be clients out there that allow the user to select `popular-site.archive.tar.gz` and not `less-popular.tar.gz` for download.

And what one person doesn't download... they can't seed back. Distributed stuff is really good for low cost, high scale distribution of in-demand content. It's _terrible_ for long term reliability/availability, though.

That is fundamentally the problem, no one wants to donate storage to host stuff they're not interested in.

More concretely, nobody wants to donate anything. They just want it to exist. Charity has never been a functional solution to normal coordination problems. We have centuries of evidence of this.