You're being downvoted above because the second comment in the thread said "Of course that's the point of it,", referring to the comment above, which said:
"it can be easily circumvented. This might be true, but its a step forward because it acknowledges that government backdoors are a bad thing.
I wish I could remember where I read about this, but its similar to how activists changed the classification of LGBT literature to a non-stigmatizing category in libraries. This was the start of a lot of progress for LGBT rights. It was a minor victory among lots of major defeats at the time it happened.
Instead of complaining about the weaknesses in the bill, we should view this as a facet of a multi-pronged effort to maintain privacy."
That's the answer to your question of why they claim it's not merely cosmetic. They think it is cosmetic, but may also play a role in shifting language and expectations, which will have a more than cosmetic effect down the line.
Edit: Rather than continue the thread – you might be right. I'll let waterlesscloud answer is I've misinterpreted their opinion.
I don't mind the downvotes! I don't think you and 'waterlesscloud agree. I said "so it's cosmetic", and my interpretation of his response is "it's more than cosmetic". If so: how? "Playing a role in shifting language"?
