2. Point face at page.
3. Wait.
4. Turn page.
5. When last page, close book.
6. Acquire new book.
7. Repeat.
One could make the same fallacious "form affects content" argument against books, but in reality authors rarely write stories for people randomly flipping pages, at most the author will tell them or explain why they might want to turn to a particular page. Similarly most content on the web doesn't assume you are jumping to links and coming back, but instead uses them as an index of references.
There are style problems of course, too much surface area, over-reliance on and under-appreciation of sources. There is nothing pure about text. Any form requires training on the part of the consumer to appreciate the "depth". From what I can see people don't care about the content, they don't even care about comparing the trade-offs from one form to another beyond format prestige and convenience.
Please look at how books actually make money rather than assuming a priori that they optimize for "lifetime value" instead of some platonic ideal book that exists in your head. Now if you're more adept at a particular medium due to practice that's a valid reason to stick with it, but it's not one to spread vile propaganda about a medium and convince its consumers to turn off their brains because the medium's difficulty matrix applied to thought patterns is different.
If you disagree, fine, feel free to write software like this [1] and pray that the problem doesn't naturally require indirection. Code is just another medium, yes the inclusion of abstractions is poison for deep thought, but not every problem is best solved by deep thought. "Study long, study wrong."