Why can't new media replace the letters in the debate?

The first step is to draw a clear line on some things:

Scope: New media appeared later than letters, but it is actually possible from the functional point of view. Of course, extreme situations, such as network paralysis or special requirements, are not ruled out. These are determined by external hard conditions and are not discussed mainly.

Definition: A clear definition is enough. You don't have to choose words. It's really just a waste to waste energy on definitions.

The second part analyzes the train of thought:

When we say that A can't replace B, there are actually two points. First, it is true that the effect of A is not as good as that of B (from the perspective of functional utility). Second, even if B has something other than its own function (added value), A doesn't.

Third, back to the debate:

Back to the debate. The overlapping part of the two is "transmitting information". Discuss whether this can be replaced. Functionally, new media can completely replace letters, so the irreplaceable "no" in our position is actually not the kind of "no" in the functional sense (otherwise, we can let the band only burn records without holding any live concerts), but add value.

This will introduce the "added value" of letters. The added value is nothing more than what is brought to readers (if it is not distributed, it will not play the role of communication). I don't need to elaborate on this place.

After talking about added value, we have to say why added value is important and some "additions" have no "value". This is the era of integration.

This letter is something with unique added value. Even though it is not even comparable to new media in terms of function, its added value makes it irreplaceable.