No, it's not email.
Email has a latency measured in seconds. Also, email is not usually public.
Explicit structure could be interesting, but structure from whose perspective? Arguments can be modeled many ways, such that there is no one correct answer. Also, that the argument could be modeled as a DAG might be very optimistic in many circumstances.
I really hope to be able to report back in about a year or so on ways to better communicate. At first I thought, maybe the best online dialectics is just walls of careful text rather than tweets. Now I try doing that, and I make careless mistakes and I can barely parse a paragraph without losing my train of thought.
The solution I think is explicit structure. Arguments usually form a (for now let's say) DAG, let's present them that way explicitly. Metadata, i.e. human emotion can be annotated onto that - emoji, good or bad vibes? If you can diff that graph even better.
Argument Maps are kind of a non-technological approach to this: https://fbistudies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/20150417_R... really impressed me.
In fact, working in a fully-remote, fairly high information density (finance) company, I think the work of the pioneer cyberneticists (and potentially Soviet ones, not sure on that as I can't speak Russian) could be immensely helpful for modelling and manipulating the spread of information and humanity within a company.