I mean. I'm not saying you're wrong here. What's freer than an anarchic society after all? Of course, we can justify rules on the grounds of freedom. A king certainly is free, his subjects are not.

So what's freer? A company that controls all aspects of their customers use of their products? Or a company that is restricted from such practices?

I can't tell if your post is sarcastic, glib, factual... So I think you were too terse here. Your meaning is not obvious.