True, but citing porn as an example is maybe the worst example you could field.
Google has any obligation to host anything, no doubt about that. The question is, though, where this will lead to. It won't affect Jihadists. That's for sure. They'll simply create new accounts, inform their fellows about it and continue to spread their bullshit. It's like spam, you can't stop that by shutting down the mail account that spams you.
The much bigger effect will be on channels that offer controversial opinions. How about those that debunk charlatans, snake-oil peddlers, religious nuts or others trying to bring their version of "the truth" to the people? Today, what we have is some people posting their, let's say incredibly well researched, conspiracies about chemtrails, the illuminati and other secret societies, flat earths and various other things, and you will of course get those that debunk them. That is, essentially, what an argument is like. One presents his theories, the other one refutes them and presents his, followed, hopefully, by another answer to it and so on.
If this "hate speech must be banned" trend catches on, you will find both sides increasingly locked into attempts to silence the other side by disabling them from actually monetizing so they essentially have to stop. Yes, that means we get to hear a lot less bullshit on YouTube, but at the same time it also means way less diversity. What we will eventually get is what we already have in various other media and social platforms: One side of the argument is forced one way or another to leave, turning the whole thing essentially into a huge echo chamber for one sided reinforcement.
I wouldn't want this to happen on YouTube, too.