這部論文以政治經濟學的角度批判網路社會的神話塑造。作者試圖論證，網路社會的種種神話源自對數位通信的技術特性──無中介性、透明性和互動性──過度樂觀，認為純粹的技術改進能夠完全排除通信障礙，也就同時排除溝通的障礙。吾人稱此為技術樂觀主義的觀點，此觀點忽略技術的社會─歷史維度：溝通也是一種社會技術，其理想狀態（理想的溝通情境）的達成並非由技術改進能單獨解決。
技術樂觀主義在一九八○年代逐漸和網路社會的另一個神話根源合拍，此即新自由主意意識型態。新自由主義強力推動自由市場的觀念，以一系列解除管制措施為自由市場鋪路：自由化和私有化。其中，電信及大眾媒介產業的解除管制為隨後發展的壟斷性全球通信及傳播營造有利的環境。當電信及大眾媒介逐漸採用信息技術而數位化，傳統通信以及不同媒介之間的藩籬都被數位技術取消，形成由電腦、媒體及電信融合成的信息媒體。當一九九○年代中期網際網路由政府釋出，交由民間經營，已由資本主義的商業邏輯主宰的信息媒體立即大舉征服網路空間，使後者成為一個以利潤為導向的大眾市場。其後果並非技術樂觀論者和新由主義者所宣稱的美麗新世界（領阻力的市場、擺脫肉體及社會束縛的自由空間），而是數位落差日益惡化，其景象如實地反映了現實空間中的經濟與地理不平等。
第一章探究CMC的特性，指出蘊含其中的純技術角度的通信（溝通）觀點乃網路社會神話的根源。第二章探討CMC的技術維度，此維度以數位為理論原則並具體化於媒介、電信及電腦，三者在數位技術的融匯下成為打破媒介界線的信息媒體。第三章及第四章探討網路空間商品化的過程。網路空間起初被視為一塊公地，由網民積極參與建構及維持。隨著新自由主義思潮的取得主宰權，網路空間也逐漸被資本主義的商業邏輯征服，起初是信息的商品化，其次是網際網路骨幹的釋出，最後是以政府及產業合作以經濟動機推動的國家信息基礎建設，以及由先進國家推動，亦是以私人產業的經濟利益為依歸的沖繩IT憲章，其結果是日益惡化的數位落差。第五章在先前諸章的批判基礎下對四個網路社會的神話進行批判，分別是電子民主、虛擬自我、虛擬社群以及隱私性。作者指出，這些神話之為神話，在於他們將CMC的發展去政治化和自然化，完全抽離該項技術發展的社會的、歷史的和政治的條件，只以純粹單線的技術發展觀點解釋CMC。這些神話的思考或者出自於素樸（如技術決定論者）或者出自於有意掩蓋（如新自由主義），都忽視現實空間中人們肉身的沈重與苦痛，這些肉身之累是無法以虛擬空間的輕盈無礙來卸除的。

This dissertation is a critical study of the myth-making of the cybersociety from the point of the political economy. The author attempts to argue that the myths of cybersociety were originated from three technological characteristics of computer-mediated-communication(CMC) people adopted: immediacy, transparency and interactivity. But from the point of view of the political economy, the technological determinism is naïve in the technological evolution of CMC, ignoring the social-historical factors of the development of technology. Thus, the critique of myths of the cybersociety must reveal social-historical conditions of CMC which are deterministic in the making of myths.
Chapter one describes the characteristics of CMC. Th author attempts to argue that the technological determinism implied in CMC, which adopts a pure technological perspective of communication, is the mythic origin of the cybersociety. Chapter two discusses the technological dimensions of CMC which adopts digital as its theoretical principle, and concretizes in media, telecommunication and computer which merging as infomedia or multimedia. Chapter three and four cover the social dimension of CMC. The argument is that as the neoliberalism dominated the economic thought and policy since 1980s, there are series of policy of deregulation in telecommunication and mass media. When the Internet was released to corporations from the mid of 1990s, the cyberspace was colonized by capitalism as a mass market. The more the cyberspace was colonized, the more the digital divide expands. Chapter five criticizes four myths of cybersociety , that are cyberdemocracy, virtual self, virtual community, and privacy, as the author argued, theses myths of cybersociety, as all other myths do, depolitize social-historical conditions of CMC and naturalize the development of CMC , therefore they have the function of utopia which ignoring theconflicts and pains in real space.