They don't seem to be arguing everyone should necessarily have a website known to be linked to them.
The argument seems to be "leave a record".
And secondarily, "for your descendants" (they write "ancestors", but that's obviously wrong).
You can do the second part without sharing with the world that it was yours. Ensure someone in your family knows, or leave notes in safe locations.
I guess we can infer a third assumption: that there's a reasonably high chance that archive.org will outlive your personal papers or data, making it potentially a valuable alternative to a journal on paper or your own systems. That part is an interesting discussion. I'd worry if everyone opted for relying on archive.org over their own copies, but at the same time, I know how vulnerable personal records can be.
The argument seems to be "leave a record".
And secondarily, "for your descendants" (they write "ancestors", but that's obviously wrong).
You can do the second part without sharing with the world that it was yours. Ensure someone in your family knows, or leave notes in safe locations.
I guess we can infer a third assumption: that there's a reasonably high chance that archive.org will outlive your personal papers or data, making it potentially a valuable alternative to a journal on paper or your own systems. That part is an interesting discussion. I'd worry if everyone opted for relying on archive.org over their own copies, but at the same time, I know how vulnerable personal records can be.