We have yet to understand the beast we call the internet...it's spiraling out of control with more and more venues to violate privacy and dabble (or drown) in voyeurism, yet at the same time, it is honing its effectiveness and precision, expanding our access to information, connecting and increasing channels of communication. Eventually there are checks and balances, right? Or have we gotten to a place, this virtual space, where they cannot or will not exist. It shows us the generation chasm between the myspacers and the major newspapers who can't sense the irony and frivolity in mydeath space. Bravo, Mr. Pietras for a great piece, and showing the virutal world at its worst, where we hide and feed a hungry, pulsating creature only to become even more weak and cowardly.

If that boy hadn't been breaking the law, tresspassing, destructing other people's property, he'd be alive today.

...and maybe people like me have seen too much dehumanized culture to trust the site & bought into the argument too quickly. On the other hand, I also wonder how much backpedaling was done too. I didn't see the site before the criticism either so I can't tell, and the "one death per hour" tag is creepy. And maybe people like me just don't get Myspace culture... I still don't and I think I'm glad. It sounds too disembodied to have much genuineness to it. But then again, maybe I'm just a geezer..

Davis's statement sums it all up:

"It's online. It doesn't always seem real to me because I didn't have a connection with [victims]." On the other hand, "If it is someone I know -- if it is 'real life' -- I am not cold or callous about it,"

However, the Net isn't totally to blame for this mentality; it's just made it so accessible and easy. The "Faces of Death" video series is one example-- it's authentic footage of deaths. I once visited the former Museum of Death in LA with friends (don't ask me why... I still regret it)and was physically ill from the seeing two teenagers casually snuggling and watching real videos of torture in Central America. I truly regret giving those a-holes my money and walking in the door.

So the mentality was out there and has been around forever, but the Net makes it so much easier for people to be distanced from reality, as well to hide behind net anonymity to engage in behavior that I doubt they'd do in the presence of others.

This kind of crap was really big in the '80's & part of the 90's (Faces of Death, that fool Trent Reznor recording at Spahn Ranch, etc), with lots of poseurs like Patterson saying they were 'commenting on society' and all of that. Having gone to art school during this time, I've heard every rationalization there is, and Patterson's full of shite.

I'll never forget when my bubbly ex-cheerleader coworker talked about "Rotten.com" as her favorite site; I'm sure she thought this mader her edgy'n'punk rock or whatever. Maybe one day one of her kids will end up being one of the autopsy photos they show (yes, they have murdered children autopsy photos. I guess people don't get enough necro-thrills from CSI and want "the real thing".)

The type of people that go for this are the same type of people who liked to sport swastikas in the 70s-80's for shock value: mindless, emotionally deadened jerks who think they're 'edgy'.

Your letter is spot on Sarah. Unfortunately, both Salon's articles and forums are drifting into the "talk show" morality of the observer, and I find it disturbing as well. Everybody wears white in anonymity, and all they observe is less, is profane, is subject to abject meanness.

All those in the audience suddenly become chaste, ethically pure, and feeling perfectly justified in delivering harsh judgment against people and ideas about which they have but the writing of one other human or mere anecdote, to support them. We have a national ethical deficit that is on display in all forums of this kind.

Opinions that are most often based on conjecture, hearsay and anecdote, are commonly delivered with the force of well researched, careful and thoughtful opinions. It's so nice there are those who can tell the difference and call it.

Any organization requires great leadership that is actually paying attention to the very real threat of hypocrisy, to present a cohesive and consistent message. An organization wielding a public pen must be double-vigilant in this regard. Though Salon can’t control what LWs write, they certainly have editorial control and a standard to meet, which they are more frequently failing to meet.

It's not a new thing and it won't go away. So, thanks for adding your thoughtful voice to the mix as a counterbalance.

After reading both the article and then the 40+ comments mostly denouncing a website that many of you have not even visited, I had a great laugh over the hypocrisy of so many of you Salon readers and letter writers.

So many of you found the idea of MyDeathSpace.com to be a vile place, based on one article and couldn't imagine yourselves or others being soooooo cruel to any family member or friend of a deceased young person. (I'm pretty sure some of the deceased are older people too, since I'm just over 50 y.o. and have made friends with many people over 50 on MySpace.com.)

What I have to say to you is that you should look into your mirrors and the windows of so many Salon readers.

Let's take a look at just one columnist on Salon whose column is devoted to people with problems; that being "Since You Asked" by Cary Tennis. Cary's letter writers range from nutcases who have too much time on their hands and nary a brain in their head that they have to ask Cary's advice on how to deal with, um let's make a problem up, "My spouse leaves the top off the toothpaste tube and it is driving me crazy. What should I do?" However, many times the LW's write about very serious and heartfelt problems such as one from last week about a son who could not afford to get to his mother's deathbed before she died and felt like a "Rotten Son".

The Letters to the Editor section of his column is so often filled with vitriol and bile against the poor person with either type of problem. Often the number of letters written for just ONE letter runs to well over 200! I have seen enormous amounts of hatred, cruelty, and inhumanity aimed towards the LW that it makes me sick. (I'm also anal and when I do read the Letters section I read every letter from #1 to however many there might be.)

My question to the LW's here and especially on Cary's site is what gives you the right to be so up in arms over a website that is supposed to be devoted to allowing people to share their grief and even to write about the stupid ways people may die. Even that last part can be cathartic in its own way. This is especially in light of the horrible and unbelievably cruel letters that get written to Cary's LW's and in answer to other columnists and journalists who write for Salon.

An old saying applies here: "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." Or, God-forbid you are religious, which also seems to be a liability and reason for ridicule on Salon: "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone", by Jesus Christ, speaking about a woman who was "caught in the act" of adultery. Maybe if the members of the Salon community practiced a little more of either the secular or the religious thoughts above, THIS place would be a more pleasant place to visit.

Really support our troops! Join adoptasoldiernow.org or email: Michael DiMaio for soldiers from the Northeast @ adoptasoldier@comcast.net