Yes, but some of those nothings are important. It doesn't say "the whitehouse supports SOPA as-is", it doesn't say the president will sign it. It doesn't attack the opponents of the bill, instead embracing lots of their language.
(It also has some real meat too: like "We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk.")
What this is, is a cave. SOPA lost, and the Whitehouse is cutting bait. Maybe there will be another bill, maybe not. But SOPA has gone from being a cheery bipartisan bill that "everyone" supports to a controversial bill that no politician in their right mind will get behind.
So they'll all say something like this: we need to honor the interests of party A in a way that doesn't infringe the interests of party B because this is very very important yada yada yada. And then they'll do nothing.
We won. Pop the cork. Just don't expect profuse apologies coming from the folks in Washington.
(It also has some real meat too: like "We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk.")
What this is, is a cave. SOPA lost, and the Whitehouse is cutting bait. Maybe there will be another bill, maybe not. But SOPA has gone from being a cheery bipartisan bill that "everyone" supports to a controversial bill that no politician in their right mind will get behind.
So they'll all say something like this: we need to honor the interests of party A in a way that doesn't infringe the interests of party B because this is very very important yada yada yada. And then they'll do nothing.
We won. Pop the cork. Just don't expect profuse apologies coming from the folks in Washington.