Publisher, distributor, and platform are legal definitions that have been worked out through case law over a long period of time. Blocking content on a political basis as a non-internet content provider would be more than enough to get you treated as a publisher.
In pre-section 230 law, even blocking content for vulgarity was enough to get you treated as a publisher, that decision was Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.
> Blocking content on a political basis as a non-internet content provider would be more than enough to get you treated as a publisher.
The key point here is "in pre-section 230 law". Prodigy Services was one the cases that prompted Congress to pass Section 230. Why cite outdated cases to try to prove your point? What's next, Dred Scott v. Sandford?
In pre-section 230 law, even blocking content for vulgarity was enough to get you treated as a publisher, that decision was Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.
Eugene Volokh has a good summary of this at https://reason.com/2020/05/28/47-u-s-c-%C2%A7-230-and-the-pu.... You might want to read it so you don't make completely uninformed statements on the internet. You should stop doing that.