The idea that the decrease in audiovisual investments is the main trigger for the announcement of streaming quotas in Australia is a gross oversimplification that ignores the complexity of state motivations.
This is a fallacious argument that confuses a symptom with the cause, suggesting that governments like France would not have acted without such a cyclical crisis.
In reality, Australia, like many countries, had long been seeking to regulate streaming giants to protect its local industry and its cultural sovereignty.
The decline in investments simply provided an opportune pretext to justify an intervention whose intent was already firmly established.
For example, the funding obligations imposed on platforms in France did not arise in response to a specific drop in investments, but within the framework of a structural regulatory strategy.