>due to the replication problem and accessibility the information on it is not durable (at least not as durable as s3)
Paper records can last for hundreds of years without the support of any expensive infrastructure. I wouldn't bet on things that are stored on s3 being available hundreds of years from now.
It seems to be default when you count governments and businesses. Those have lasted decades even when they didn't want individual records to on occasion. Whereas, the current systems use individual components that break faster with huge damage loss per square inch provided through services that charge you & try to cause lock-in more over time. The competition for those services is also intense in a way that often results in firms going under with a few surviving.
Whereas, the older tech that lasted so long used simple components on older, process nodes with careful engineering practices. The better ones were also extremely costly with Voyager being a good example at $800+ million.
>Some of paper lasted for hundreds of years. How much of information didn't survive during that time period?
But we're just dealing with simple physical facts about paper here. All you need is a safe place to store it. S3 doesn't run without constant and costly maintenance.
Paper records can last for hundreds of years without the support of any expensive infrastructure. I wouldn't bet on things that are stored on s3 being available hundreds of years from now.