It is absurd to reduce the implementation of streaming quotas by the Australian government to a simple mechanical reaction to the decline in audiovisual investments. This simplistic interpretation ignores the political complexity and underlying motivations, such as cultural sovereignty and the protection of the local industry, which are often the true drivers of such regulatory decisions. The decrease in spending is only a symptom, a pretext, and not the exclusive and decisive cause of a policy already in the making. For example, France's adoption of radio quotas was primarily aimed at protecting the French language and national production, well beyond immediate economic fluctuations, as evidenced by the Toubon law.