> Free will seems to be qualitatively different to randomness.
There is no such thing as free will, so any attempt to define it will fail.
If we naively define it as something that isn't just pure randomness, but also something that isn't pure causality, then what is it?
Either things are causal, in which case, you can replay everything and arrive at the same point. That doens't fit an intuitive definition of free will.
Or there is randomness, play the same sequence of events again and some inherent randomness will cause a different outcome. That also doesn't fit any intuitive sense of free will.
So, since we can't even define it, it is meaningless to assume there is free will in the first place. We can talk in terms of causality or randomness.