The claim
U34: “given we are already distinguishing notions of agency from notions of phenomenal experience, I don’t see why this is a problem. we can speak perfectly coherently about whether or not microsoft was ‘acting freely’ … or if ‘its hand was forced’.”
Why it was superseded
Not refuted: CASE-034 counts against it, but the owner’s point that freedom talk about corporations is coherent survives. The paper chose a different answer to the same objection — assume the agent rather than accept minimal wills — because that answer did not need to be defended in a paper about efficacy.