That is entirely untrue. So many student films, home movies, YouTube posts get shown before human review.

You seem to be wildly underestimating the complexity of the task and the long tail of content creation. There are 1.9 billion daily users.

You’re asking to REQUIRE a human content moderation system that reviews 100% of the continent that 1.9 billion users can create a day? Before that content can get shown? I don’t see a feasible way of creating a system like that which will serve the needs of those 1.9 billion users in a way that will seem remotely tolerable to them, that can timely share their content.

If a company who already moderates a portion of their content claims that they're unable to moderate content due to scale, should we really accept that as a valid argument?

Have we actually decided that "scale" is a good a justification for behaving badly, or are we simply accepting it without critical thought because we once respected those companies?

IMO, companies do not have some inherent right to profitability, or even to remain in business, if they can't responsibly conduct their business.

Yes it is a valid argument. This is exactly why Ron Wyden wrote section 230 and why nobody has a replacement that isn’t suspect as a bill of attainder. A light amount moderation is easy. Doing that everywhere is hard. The same thing works for police. We police a portion of the city, but we don’t want or expect the police to cover every single inch of the city.

And why $15?

Should they pay that much in a really poor country. What about a really rich one (may be Switzerland)?

End of the day quality of living is totally dependent on local conditions (barring gadgets like ipricy)

MPAA ratings are voluntary not law.