More restrictions do not make a free market, that just doesn't make sense. The only monopolies that exist do so because the government has made it harder for competition, outside of this monopolies do not exist. 10 years ago MySpace had a monopoly on social networking.

Flawed premise restrictions are the antithesis of a free market so the answer is no from a factual stand point not agreement or disagreement. The real question is whether a free market economy is good or not

The problem with this perspective is that it assumes that tasking the government with a task will magically solve problems, when most of the time there are no true solutions to most problems stemming from the principles of scarcity; only tradeoffs.

This flaw is observable in nearly every popular argument for the socialization of nearly any good or service.

Natural Monopolies Do Not Exist
This implies that monopolies form naturally they do not, as long as one other business exists there is not a monopoly. Monopolies are enforced by bottlenecking. This is when a business lobby for regulations to make it harder and harder to get into the business. This would require lots of money and auditors/lawyers to get around all the loopholes. The big monopolies can afford this the small corner shop cannot.
Another problem is you need to take into account sacrity, to form a monopoly the business would need to buy out all the other businesses. The less businesses the more expensive it is to buy them. They may also just straight up not want to sell. The other business would need to then run them out by undercutting prices which would require them to sell at a loss which is unsustainable.
if monopolies do exist it's on utilities or it's very localised E.G the small village with 20 houses and a single Cornershop.

'Genuine' free market means NO restrictions at all. There is not a single case in the world that any restriction make anything more free.