A move that will achieve little other than to damage Google's image further.
There are other prevalent video upload/streaming websites who will not as actively enforce their content restrictions. The impact of YouTube's aggressively purging cybersecurity content will be minimal in a practical sense.
In a philosophical sense, the internet has no intrinsic governing body, and as such content restrictions are placed in the hands of content hosts.
It is when the content hosts are so massive that they are effectively dictating law (not to say that YouTube is forcing a precedent on other hosts, but rather by placing restrictions on such a massive traffic volume) that the "Big Brother" scenario is unsurprisingly brought up.
I think if Google tracked everyone who uploaded and/or watched said content and then transmitted their information to the authorities, this would be Big Brother level. And they may very well do this already, I lack the knowledge on the topic to say.
But content restrictions are theirs to impose. I think most of us will judge them by the execution of the prohibition of said content.
If they successfully keep their filters narrow enough to remove content that is uploaded for the purposes of causing damage/harm to others, I do not think many of us would judge. There are those who speak of freedom of speech, but if I had a list of user credentials for an internet banking website or GMail, I do not think my transmission of them to the masses would be a responsible thing to do, and neither would I think that freedom of speech obstruction would be a valid defence of my actions were I to transmit everybody's user credentials to the masses for anyone to play with.
People are not simply recruited as pentesters or similar straight out of school, they are typically required to have qualifications or at least core competencies and I imagine an attitude appropriate to the sensitive work and material involved.
It's not as simple as many contend. Many are content with videos about murder, child abuse etc. being prohibited. They talk of their content options being dictated, but look at prior mediums. Television never included these things, because it was considered improper and/or illegal to disseminate material instructing or capable of instructing people to commit or get away with committing acts of crime. The internet had no such restrictions because people are the content producers, not studios.
However, the internet has not changed. If you desire freedom of speech, put your own website up as we all did in the beginning, rather than relying on a mainstream host whose legal obligations are proportionate to its mass and its media presence. If you use YouTube, you sacrifice your freedom for convenience and access to traffic volume, just as you would if you were to broadcast on TV or Netflix.