I want to be sympathetic to this sort of thing in the general sense. I really do.

But... I'm not at all sad that Daily Stormer has trouble staying online.

Free speech means you're allowed to say whatever you want. It doesn't mean that anyone has to give you a platform to say your piece. It doesn't mean that people can't react negatively to what you say. It doesn't mean that there are no consequences to what you say.

Assuming there is reasonable diversity in your options for platforms[0], and yet you still can't find a place for your speech, maybe you're just an irredeemable asshole and should change your views[1].

[0] The current availability of this is certainly debatable.

[1] Maybe you're not and you actually are being unjustly oppressed and censored. But I don't believe that's the case with the Daily Stormer.

Free speech is an interesting ideal but historically there's always been "acceptable speech" and "discouraged speech", where discouragement comes on a spectrum between "outright banned and prison" to "people don't invite you to parties".

In hunter-gatherer days if you had extremely antisocial ideology your tribe probably just left you in the desert and you died.

You are proving the OPs point. No government compelled cloudflare to stop providing services for the daily stormer. They stopped because most people don’t want services from your neighborhood white supremacy DNS provider and that was what cloudflare would be known as if they did.

Should the government compell private internet service firms to service anyone?

An argument can be made that if the ability to use the web is a human right[1] then yes, governments have a responsibility to ensure their citizens can actually use it. You can make an analogy to (private) providers of healthcare denying coverage to patients they find disagreeable.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2016/7/4/12092740/un-resolution-con...

In what ways are domain name services analogues to healthcare?