I think you two are largely agreeing but speaking past each other. It's true that technology enables individuals to objectively act in ways that were previously

I think you two are largely agreeing but speaking past each other. It's true that technology enables individuals to objectively act in ways that were previously cost prohibitive. These previously unavailable actions, looked at on the scale of individuals, is objectively 'more' freedom. However there is a complexity added to this analysis when you consider society beyond the scale of ones or tens of people that quickly becomes very chaotic. When everyone gets these new abilities, it's unclear whether how our 'net' freedom has actually changed. If everyone is louder, it's harder to hear anyone. It's more choices to pick from who we want to listen to, but if that choice becomes SO vast as to be overwhelming to the individual then maybe we're actually less free, in the ways that we'd like to be. I don't think freedom is a scalar value so can't really be directly compared/reasoned about, but I also think it's a mistake to finish the train of thought at: 'More people can do more stuff so we must be more free.' The world is more complicated, and these increasingly sophisticated abilities come with cost and responsibility. We're asking a lot of citizens to keep up with the deluge of data. There are definitely benefits to being informed, but what are the costs? How are the asymmetries in these costs leveraged by bad actors? There are so many questions...