Dave positions free will as a 1 or 0 thing, and then tends to 0. Is it that binary though? A spectrum (matters of degree across different contexts) would also help explain things.

Free will is not free of consequences, which is where conditioning kicks in. (and society demanding responsibility or not)

How about animals? Conditioned by their ecosystem (like us, by ecosystem and culture), yet free to roam which coalesces into patterns (migration, foraging, trails)

Is emergence then disproving free will? Emergence is the only possible definition of 'they' here. Which lacks intention and planning. Still means you can perceive it as forcing you / hostility compared to you individually.

Evolution. Your starting point on the evolutionary field of possibilities is determined outside of you, and limits choices/paths, as does every choice made along the way cut off certain paths and brings others in reach. One has limited control there by def, and no control for the first phase of life (what little control as child is there is while ignorant of consequences down the line wrt options).

This juxtaposes invidivual (having free will or not), and society (imposing full conditioning). Crux of complexity is group level, groups one is part of by conditioning/birth and by choice/seeking out within available pre-conditioned options. There is no influence free place, but doubt it's a prerequisite for free will. Is agency more useful term, as it does apply to groups, and by extension organisations and countries. Bit weird their mention in context of free will as if anthromorphisation is something actual.