I wouldn't necessarily fault github in this situation. The product started with a great community and it would have been wasteful for them to have spent their time early on implementing defense mechanisms against abuse instead of focusing on features.
For example, I wouldn't expect them to add spam filtering to their message system, but if viagra ads started popping up on github it'd be a worthwhile addition. However, to label that poorly thought out or an incomplete implementation of messaging seems unfair.
Of course, now that the community is larger and github is being used as a platform for childish squabbles/recruiters/etc, it's a good idea for them to fix these types of issues as they pop up (which they're already doing).
Yeah, I guess that's where I was going with my "incomplete implementation" alternative.
Sure, you launch with a MVP that doesn't include protection against trolls, but you really want to have at least a plan for how you're going to deal with them when you finally gain enough traction to start attracting them (and if _I_ were Github, I'd be profusely apologising to Zed, and _very_ publicly smacking down Nick (and his idiot copycat friends)).
For example, I wouldn't expect them to add spam filtering to their message system, but if viagra ads started popping up on github it'd be a worthwhile addition. However, to label that poorly thought out or an incomplete implementation of messaging seems unfair.
Of course, now that the community is larger and github is being used as a platform for childish squabbles/recruiters/etc, it's a good idea for them to fix these types of issues as they pop up (which they're already doing).