It exists but could become irrelevant. As an example, imagine a candidate for national office. They literally can't reach enough voters to make a difference without an internet presence. If Google's algorithm "accidentally" determines they are not worthy of a search, how will people find out about him or her?
Trump has just been "suspended" from facebook for two years by their "oversight board". As long as these companies have a practically monopoly presence*, they can decide who we get to learn about, or not, for any public office. Not to mention any other information that is relevant or critical. They are even now still censoring posts regarding the Wuhan lab leak.
They (facebook, twitter, google, etc.) have enough sheep using them exclusively that they can run the narrative. Those of us who look for other news sources are labeled as kooks, and sadly, the numbers are on their side, at least for now.
* I would argue that when companies can collude to shut down alternatives (see Parler, where facebook, twitter, and amazon all worked together to kill Parler) they are effectively monopolies.
