Your observations on the changes in the infoverse summarize things well.  The boundary between site and blog can be indistinct and rather porous and wobbly, but the distinction does capture a difference of use and expectations.   These continue to evolve, and so like any neighborhood, some people move out, in, die, get born which leaves long time residents sometimes something between bewildered and bemused.

So, against your suggestion, I will argue with myself philosophically.

My use of "ephemeral" contained carried some baggage not readily apparent from my quote.  First, I regard the word as frequently an emphatic redundancy, an idea we previously discussed.  "Existing for a short time" is the general definition.  Short here may be long there.  So in the sense that everything is short from a sufficiently long perspective, "ephemeral" may be regarded as a redundancy.

Quoting myself yet again in a discussion of what I called the "ephemeral sublime".

After all, to the extent that anything exists, it exists ephemerally.  In past posts, I’ve discussed the Buddhist presentation of Emptiness.  The causes and conditions supporting an object or process are all always changing, are ephemeral, as is their result – the object or process.

The view-point and the time scale one uses in considering something determines whether it seems to exist for a long or short time.  Seen from the perspective of cosmic time, all of human existence is ephemeral.

The implicit presence of this kind of time scale as backdrop is what makes the “short time” of the ordinary sense of ephemeral mean something worth mentioning at all.

I bring this up to introduce the sublime.  Certainly both blog and site have a shot at it, even if only ephemerally.