I'm the same age as you, Yukbuk, and watch YouTube far more than I watch television. I also work with teenagers, who all recognise you tubers over traditional celebrities.
But this is very different from kids being in movies and on TV. There are legal documents surrounding those children's participation, and rules to follow about the hours they work and the money they receive. They are protected. The kids of bloggers, however, are largely being exploited by their own parents, as this is such a new form of media which is still poorly regulated (e.g. The ongoing scandals surrounding disclosure of paid advertorials).
And I think it's naive to assume that by the time the kids are grown, the fame and money will still exist for the kids to reap the benefits of. YouTube is a fickle business, and the shelf life of a blogger is extremely unpredictable and quick to expire (Tyler Oakley, for example, one of the biggest vloggers a couple of years ago has now been in negative subscribers for months, as has Louise Pentland). It's likely that their parents will no longer be relevant or using YouTube as their income ten years from now. Also, unless the SJs are investing very wisely, they will not be earning enough to still be wealthy to the point of allowing their children to share in their earnings (which they bloody should, since they are being exploited) in, say, fifteen years, when the kids are at university/house-buying age.
Which, to my mind, will equal a generation of unhappy young people whose early lives were shared in minute detail with the internet, copies of which will permanently exist online, who will likely not receive their fair share of the benefits from their fame-hungry and greedy parents.