>It's likely because the subject matter requires a certain degree of intelligence, which tends to negatively correlate with trashiness.

I think you're confusing "more homogeneous" with "less trashy".

Trashy is just whatever the local minority does that the local majority finds repulsive.

A lot of the opinions conveyed in the commentary on HN that are reasonably well accepted would go over like a lead balloon in some other communities.

While I see where you are coming from, I think we can all unanimously and irrevocably agree that posting child porn and snuff videos to social media is pretty damn trashy.

I think you're sort of missing the point. Posting gore/cp on, say, your public feed on a public internet social media site is trashy by the common idea of civil/moral behaviour, but it would be par for the course on liveleak social/ a tor hidden services pedophile social network. It can be taken for granted that most people think CP is bad, and that sending pictures of dismembered kids to thousands of strangers is rude. Anyone who doesn't agree* will hide anyway, or act anonymously. What's the point in a post like this?

> “bombarded” with “thousands of videos, images and livestreamed broadcasts of child sexual abuse, rape, torture, bestiality, beheadings, suicide and murder,”

Those aren't "shitty users" those are vile and criminal people doing extremely horrible things and sharing them. Most or many of those people should be, where possible, referred to local authorities for judicial processing. FB can very well ID these offenders. It's not like they don't collect enough information to know who they are.

Dribbble is only nice because nobody knows about it. Once the spammers show up with their bots they can turn it into a cesspit too.

It's hard to combat someone willing to set up thousands of accounts to get their message out, especially since some portion of those will be "good" accounts designed to make the system look bad if they get banned.

That doesn't solve anything. How far up the invite tree do you go? If you go all the way to the top, you'd have to ban yourself, the founding user. If you don't go all the way, then unsavoury users will just construct a long invite chain to insulate themselves from whoever they invite. There's probably some more clever graph theory stuff you can do to make this process a bit more reliable, but good luck justifying your algorithm to the people you just banned.

You don't give out invites until people have used the app for some amount of time.

> use an invitation code from another user. They don't have to use their real names, but if they do something fraudulent or awful both the inviter and the invitee get banned.

Interesting. Like a regular meatspace party. Gmail used it and I got the feeling of them using it as social network tracking, so I wrote it off. But this is a great application. Will have to check out Dribble if anyone will invite me on ;).