As long as a site stays pretty strong when it comes to shitposting, it should be fine. When looking at the defaults, there's a lot of shitposting in subs like /r/funny and /r/askreddit, but if you go somewhere heavily moderated like /r/science or /r/askhistorians, the discussion is pretty stellar. The key to keeping good discussion flowing is heavy moderation. If a site stays too loose, then the whole thing keeps getting filled with people posting the same things over and over again. However, with the right amount, it's possible to create a site that retains good discussion without getting too overzealous with moderation. If it lets people moderate themselves, it works pretty well, until the shitposting gets too much to filter out on a user to user basis.

At the same time, if a site doesn't reward people for regurgitating popular talking points and punish people for giving dissenting opinions, then it fares a lot better. 4chan is full of shitposts, but simultaneously has good points being brought up, regardless of the consensus (exceptions: /b/ and /v/). There is no upvote to push things to the top, nor is there a downvote that hides things to most users - it's all equal through the eyes of the ranking algorithm. Also, there's a lack of point tracking system that pats people on the back for contributing towards the hivemind.