Two different arguments
It seems to me this discussion confuses different arguments:
1. Basic free speech. Should Daily Stormer have it at all?
2. Corporate decisions about providing a platform for free speech.
3. Actions against free speech.
I'm with Voltaire on Daily Stormer having a voice (not that I want to listen to them). I'm also with corporations having the right to say "not on our platform", though I'll cry Hypocrisy if those corporations also make claims about universality or about being champions of free speech.
What is much more sinister is if, as hinted here, corporations are being intimidated into denying free speech. Even to real Nazis (if indeed they really are both nationalist and socialist). Yet we know that kind of thing does happen, much more widely. I was first aware of it back in my schooldays, when the news carried semi-regular stories of peaceful marches by one political faction being disrupted by violence from another, and then banned for fear of that violence.
 Unless in the context of this story itself: if I post here, I should really take a look so I know what I'm talking about. Better do that from the relative anonymity of public wifi, if the Great Firewall will let me.