Well, I should say all additional full nodes being run, would add some more redundancy. 
When other nodes goes down and there are backup nodes, then that adds some value, right?
There are on the order of 10,000 reachable nodes. So we already have ~10,000x redundancy, adding more doesn't seem like much of a value. Also, I was mostly trying to ask about someone already running one or more nodes adding an additional one-- the additional one probably goes down if the rest due, so the addition is not much value. When other nodes goes down and there are backup nodes, then that adds some value, right? There are plenty of reasons for people to run bitcoin nodes-- better security, better privacy... but not really any gain in having a hosting party run multiple.
I cannot see why the addition of more nodes could be worthless, even if we have 10 000+ nodes already. Software are corruptible and some OS is very volatile and unreliable, so node counts will go up and down as these nodes fail.
Plus the Bitcoin network by design should really be scaling up, not down.
Quote
Then again, I agree with your point about an individual hosting multiple nodes in one location. Thank you for the civil discussion on this topic, some people would just force their opinion, without even considering the pros and cons of alternative ideas. 
You should also be an "active node". Have your family and friends connect their SPV wallets to your node, or use the node for your own transactions hosted in hardware that you control.
Running a node in AWS is a "passive node", and it's useless.
Quote
If you continue doing this --> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1377345.0 people in 3rd world countries will not have an excuse to run full nodes. Thanks.
That is real scaling. This community has been manipulated by the "scaling debate" to believe that Bitcoin's biggest problem is its block size. Bitcoin's biggest problem is latency.