>If a bookstore banned some books claiming they were "dangerous" but then sold a book that could be ruled as inciting violence then they could be held liable.

No they can't.. Why would you think that? That would be punishing them for using their First Amendment right to no carry the books they don't want to carry.

​

>Smith v. California (1959)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._California
The court held that the free publication and distribution of books are protected under the constitution's guarantee of freedom of the press, and that a bookseller, such as Eleazar Smith, plays a key role in this publication and distribution. The court also cited that legal doctrines and devices are not capable of application under the constitution if they would have the effect of inhibiting freedom of expression by making citizens afraid or reluctant to exercise that freedom.

Section 230 protects Publishers, specifically.

>"Id. at 803 AOL falls squarely within this traditional definition of a publisher and, therefore, is clearly protected by §230's immunity."
>
>https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1075207.html#:~:text=Id.%20at%20803

Not really.. The case is only about algorithmic amplification.

It would be like holding a bookstore liable for creating a local best sellers list. That's stupid.

Wow... Who lied to you?

Websites do not fall into either publisher or non-publisher categories. There is no platform vs publisher distinction.

Additionally the term "Platform" has no legal definition or significance.

All websites are Publishers.