This is a controversial claim. How can someone be responsible for something they have no control over? I'd agree that's possible, but I don't think that's how most people understand it.
Introducing randomness just eliminates that determanism, not the ability to choose.
The Frankfurt cases showed that control over alternate possibilities is not necessary for responsibility. If someone holds a gun to your head to make you do something that you were going to do anyway, that's not really compromising your free will is it?
Edit: it's also not really as controversial as you might think, experimental philosophy has demonstrated that most lay people's moral reasoning aligns with Compatibilism: https://philarchive.org/rec/ANDWCI-3
Lay people are incoherent and childishly naive. I don't really care what they think.
> The Frankfurt cases showed that control over alternate possibilities is not necessary for responsibility.
This is a controversial claim. There are many popular counterarguments.
I wouldn't consider 60% agreement to be that controversial frankly, especially when the next most popular contender at 18% is the incoherent mess that is libertarian free will.
> Lay people are incoherent and childishly naive. I don't really care what they think.
You should, because 1) many trying to dismiss free will use lay people's alleged incoherent definitions, but that's the wrong way to question lay people because they don't think in denotational terms, and if you question them properly they have nuanced and coherent approaches to moral reasoning, and 2) making sense of free will is all about how lay people talk and reason about these concepts, and the point of the philosophical debate over free will is whether there is a coherent definition that can make sense of these arguments.
Furthermore, the paper I linked is directly relevant to your post because you made the claim that it's not how most people understand the term, and that paper casts some serious doubt on that position.
> This is a controversial claim. There are many popular counterarguments.
"Popular" quantified how exactly? Frankly this is even less controversial than the acceptance of Compatibilism, so I won't lose any sleep over it.
Yes, but what does this have to do with free will as most people understand the term? They want to be responsible for their choices, but this is compatible with a deterministic universe.