Who knows if it will be Google Tube or not....If it is, it's a plus with teens since Google reigns supreme with this demo -- even in email, which teens are barely using. According to this item about a youth panel at the Online News Association conference, if they are checking email, it's probably gmail. But I digress.

The New Yorker has a lengthy piece on what it means to be famous on YouTube, profiling some of its biggest "stars."

In what feels like a complete disconnect, a second overexposed artist, that would be P. Diddy, just launched a channel on YouTube sponsored by Burger King. I'm sorry but Paris Hilton and P. Diddy just seem really at odds with the DIY feel of the site....Weird choices as the company attempts to prove it has a business model.

The New York Times looks at the pitfalls of responding to abuse flags on YouTube and the slippery slope of whether or not this constitutes censorship. My take on this is that there are moderated communities and unmoderated communities. It's hard to go from one to the other without upsetting your core users. YouTube is largely unmoderated, so it will be tough to start developing standards now. At Current, we actively moderated in order to keep the quality of the discussion high. Other sites like Television Without Pity, are heavily moderated. Even Flickr is a more moderated community.

And amidst the whole Mark Cuban flap, Universal Music, who recently threatened to sue YouTube, has now made peace. There is still lots of debate over how moronic it is or isn't for anyone, including Google, to buy the site. Here's an interesting argument for the purchase from Charlene Li at Forrester and another more critical perspective from Om Malik.

Posted by anastasia