Opinions are like arseholes, everyone's got one.
Also on that note, not sure about others but I have MAAAAANY opinions. Up to biologists now to come up with a proper definition for the polyarseholian mammals
I had the (dis)pleasure of a temporary responsibility for a chunk of the website of my employer at that time, a Fortune 100 company. That's actually a massive overstatement, because in those upper circles of the capitalisphere, the contractual boundaries of the role were so incredibly narrow. Not a single component of the website was under direct control of company employees. The website was entirely outsourced to a media agency, which subcontracted the hosting and security to some other big names (and probably low-paid noobs with occasional oversight of some more experienced L3/L4 people when **** hit the fan). I was merely the single point of contact between my part of the enterprise and the agency's rudimentary internal content management system, where I could submit new content for publication on the site. The submitted content would go through an agency review workflow and end up on a QA website for client sign-off, before another workflow triggered its publishing on the main site. Lots of eyes would scrutinize every word and attachment being published, for conformity with visual identity, PR, legal, regulatory, marketing and some more criteria. If those were checked, the contract requirements were fulfilled.
There were additional technical requirements for availability, for example, but those felt almost like an afterthought put in by sales people because they also needed something technical in there and they just grabbed something vaguely relevant from Wikipedia. (Seen it another time in another Fortune 500 contract for cloud outsourcing, but I digress.) The parameters were generally assimilated with the minimum quality guarantees of any generic off-the-shelf shared hosting, and didn't even have some serious penalties for breaching that SLA.
Technically, the servers were crap, running probably the Internet's last Windows Server with IIS, the website was built on ASP (not even .NET) with a Microsoft Access database backend that would sometimes cause multiple visitors to lock each other out, there was no load balancing of any sort, the DNS was the slowest I have ever seen, and I doubt they had any monitoring, alerts, centralized logging, web application firewalling or other similarly sci-fi (for them) activities attached. Overall it felt like the service was waaaay down the long tail of obsolete technology and the various projects to overhaul it would just reduce the technological debt from "ancient" to "very old". A LAMP stack was in the talks for years as the magical Nirvana but nobody had the technical expertise to lead it and no firm actions were defined in that direction. Not sure if that was because IT (including security) had no say in what was essentially the tool between Marketing, PR, Legal and external media agencies, or because for the external subcontractors it was a fat cow to milk repeatedly instead of getting one project to bring everything up to speed then have only operational billable services and no revenue from improvement projects for years.
It's probably not relevant to generalize from the statistic population of 1 Fortune enterprise. At least in that case, the site may have been created by someone who could get things working (but not necessarily have a thorough architectural design or define a technological lifecycle for it), but was definitely operated at the bare minimum level for (contractual) functionality by technically inept people behind a faceless "professional service".
I share the opinion/arsehole that mastery at running a website is closely related to the website being part of the product being offered and not just a marketing/sales/PR/legal communication tool.