I think you're missing the opportunity for dialog that such imagery presents. Why do the shock sites persevere? Not everyone finds them so repulsive that they must be scrubbed and purged from the tubular lining of the interwebs; indeed they exist and perpetuate out of pubescent hilarity. The sick gratification of imagining the unwary clicking on your carefully laid trap is akin to the playground turn of phrase; "show me yours and I'll show you mine." Online anonymity proves many humans long past anatomical self discovery are still children. Even the more asinine Rick Astley video can be translated to this juvenile pranking mechanism - the reaction is the same, though the moral sliding scale different.

The question to suss out, is how will idkfa 3.0 operate? Is this a sounding board for friends to share information and start dialogs otherwise encountered in fireside chats? Maybe it's a refuge for friends scattered across the globe; the panacea for the facebook privacy plague. Is it a true internet forum of anonymous turds; sometimes reaching a meaningful accord, sometimes throwing virtual fecal matter? I suppose the tubgirl analogy (To be clear: there is irl accountability at stake. It's ridiculous to consider such a hypothesis as serious. I'll save that ambush for when I create a troll as well as manage to mask my IP) is more of a question to hone in on the use of idkfa. Especially for one unfamiliar with the previous two iterations.