Personally, I'd never trust the only copy of something important to a service provider--especially one that isn't a "big name." (Though even in the case of big names there can be issues with account access, etc.)
ADDED: Curious why people find this a controversial statement. I understand if you have AWS set up with various redundancies but even a service like Backblaze I consider a belt and suspenders-type backup. This is in no way a commentary on the OP but simply an acknowledgement that stuff happens.
Makes sense. You can feel vulnerable in a big hurry if your primary fails or if it turns out that one of your backups wasn't being properly backed up to.
I know a lot of people these days are fine with their stuff mostly just being stored in "the cloud" someplace. But for things like photos, I really want a couple copies under my control to the degree possible.
Personally, I'd never trust the only copy of something important to a service provider--especially one that isn't a "big name." (Though even in the case of big names there can be issues with account access, etc.)
ADDED: Curious why people find this a controversial statement. I understand if you have AWS set up with various redundancies but even a service like Backblaze I consider a belt and suspenders-type backup. This is in no way a commentary on the OP but simply an acknowledgement that stuff happens.