How can one seriously support the idea that a simple reduction in spending could 'trigger' a government policy as complex as the implementation of streaming quotas? This is a roughly simplified interpretation of public decision-making, which ignores deep strategic motivations. An executive is not a reactive automaton, but an organ that acts according to well-defined political and cultural priorities. For example, Canada implemented content quotas long before a widespread decline in investments, highlighting an existing political will. This assertion confuses a contributing factor with the sole and decisive cause.