I find the part that a space has social and cultural aspects just as a place is hard to understand. A space only has social and cultural meanings when people are using it. Aboriginal people’s movement in space example can be argued that their movements in space are subject to their perception of such a space. In other words, they had those movements because they were using it as a place. Is it even possible for people to perform any spatial practices without using it as a place? I think the purpose of having a separation of space and place is to realize that there is a difference between the opportunities that a space offers and how people understand it. If space can have social and cultural components, I become confused about the difference between a space and place.
The author has another viewpoint that I find hard to understand: technology doesn’t create a new space, but rather allow people to encounter and appropriate existing spaces in different ways. As the author defines it: a space offers opportunities. A electric space is offering different opportunities from a physical space. The tasks they do such as meetings and gaming are extensions to the existing places rather than spaces. I think the electronic spaces are created with the metaphor of existing spaces to make it easier to understand and use. This doesn't mean they are the same as those spaces. I think the act of visiting any website is a spatial movement of self projection in the space of internet. After all, I find the author's argument for this statement needs more justification.
