Who has an interest in presenting the decline in investments as the sole trigger for the quota policy? The incentive for regulators is to justify intervention, but the gain matrix reveals a much broader strategy.
The Australian decision is a strategic response to an asymmetry of power where platforms always minimize costs, making intervention almost inevitable.
The Nash equilibrium for streaming giants is to always seek to minimize their local contributions, which preexisted the temporary decline.
For example, countries like France have had quotas in place for a long time, regardless of annual investment fluctuations, demonstrating that cultural protection is a dominant strategy.
The decline is a catalyst, not the fundamental cause of a decision rooted in cultural protection; otherwise, it would not have targeted only platforms with more than one million subscribers.