The predominant sentiment I'm seeing in comments here is a 'what does it matter?' While at the same time in discussions here about search engine result quality

The predominant sentiment I'm seeing in comments here is a 'what does it matter?' While at the same time in discussions here about search engine result quality inevitably the most popular comments express a decline in quality (influenced by SEO, AI, spam, among other things), along with a desire for surfacing interesting, human made content that gets buried by modern search algorithms. On HN we see every day interesting, first page content marked with a title representing its year, sometimes dating back a decade or more. Its age isn't apparently a detracting aspect to this audience if the content is still worth sharing. And from the article the headline figure also doesn't represent irrelevant/undesirable content either but Wikipedia references, news articles, government pages, along with less unexpectedly ephemeral things like Twitter posts. We're lucky there is archive.org but since it's not indexed like a regular search engine the only tether to old pages are still-live links found via regular search engines/sites (including HN). Essentially unless sites continue to exist that contain links to archived content the chances of future discovery becomes slim. My stance is if you find something interesting that you expect is worthwhile sharing try saving it in the most convenient single file page format available to you (MHTML, SingleFile, PDF), to have your own copy. For MHTML at least it also saves the original page URL in its metadata. Saving to online archives is also great but admittedly higher friction (and can sometimes result in things like IP restrictions on archive.org even when saving just a handful of pages in a row, ime).