This is not how the experts explain it. Section 230 is not about splitting providers in publishers and platforms. That is the common misunderstanding. The Verge has done several articles on this very subject[0].
Section 230 is not about splitting them, but the first amendment itself already makes that distinction (as your article points out).
I think the article's headline "says it doesn’t matter if you’re a publisher or a platform" is incorrect, because if sec 230 eliminated that distinction it would be in conflict with the first amendment. The interviewee also never makes this claim. It's more so that current rulings of section 230 simply say that you don't "publish" but "platform" user generated content.
As far as I know the contention is where the limits of this are. There definitely is a point where it stops, since a digital magazine very much is a publisher and responsible for the articles it puts out. Some people think heavily curating already means that it's not just user generated content, while others think it's fine.
In the end, I think this is something that will eventually be decided by a (supreme?) court ruling. Trump won't get to decide this alone, but I don't think it's impossible for him to escalate this.
0. https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte...