That sounds good on paper, but what happens when your revenue doesn't closely correlate with the number of users? Hypothetically, a site can have a million users but have a shoestring budget. On the other side of the scale, Twitter not only has the support structure to mass moderate but they have investors providing millions of dollars. Hiring a full time moderator isn't trivial; it's thousands a year per person, which can be tough for a website that operates on mere thousands to even a few million.

> That sounds good on paper, but what happens when your revenue doesn't closely correlate with the number of users?

I mean, moderation or no moderation, your overall costs are going to roughly correlate with your number of users. If you can't come up with some kind of revenue stream -- be it subscriptions, advertising, or donations -- your site is going to be a money pit.

Besides, depending on what kind of site you're operating, moderation can sometimes be managed by volunteers. Some high profile sites like 4chan make that work pretty well. But it depends on having dedicated volunteers who can agree to enforce rules, which isn't always easy.

> but what happens when your revenue doesn't closely correlate with the number of users?

Then you stop chasing growth at all costs or you go under/lose business partnerships/etc. Sounds like the free market to me - I don't get the idea that a business is entitled to existence no matter what, whether or not it can afford to pay labour (or even get enough volunteers) to do its work.

> but what happens when your revenue doesn't closely correlate with the number of users?

Then you're fucked, because you overextended past your available resources, and you crash and burn.