For years, no sector has mattered more to investors than technology does.

More than 25% of the S&P 500 Index SPX, -1.15% comprises tech stocks, with nearly 10% tied to three Big Tech names alone: Apple Inc. AAPL, +3.03% , Microsoft Corp. MSFT, +1.07% and Amazon.com AMZN, +0.18% .

Together, the trio collectively accounts for more than $2.3 trillion in market value. And over the past 12 months, six of the top seven performers in the S&P 500 are in the tech sector.

But cracks have started to appear in Big Tech, most notably with this week’s big slide for Facebook’s stock FB, -1.73% after U.S. legislators talked up an investigation into how data were gathered from users without their permission during the 2016 election. U.K. lawmakers are also interested in holding an investigation into the social-media giant’s tactics.

In a way, we shouldn’t be surprised, since all expectations of personal privacy went out the window as Big Tech came into power. This is just one of many tangible downsides to mega-cap technology companies, along with the chronic displacement of blue-collar workers in the age of artificial intelligence and automation, and the massive megaphone Silicon Valley gives to cyberbullies and hate groups in the digital age.

However, many people, particularly in Silicon Valley, have long shrouded themselves in the idea that “disruption” is always a net positive, and that any headaches are simply Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” at work as we forge a brighter future.

Increasingly, though, it’s worth taking a more holistic accounting of what Big Tech is costing us vs. what we gain, and whether those gains are evenly distributed across the American economy.

And in an age where the old conservative idea of laissez-faire economics seems to be going out the window with new immigration restrictions and tariffs, it doesn’t seem that much of a leap for the government to get involved.

Tech titan Microsoft, of course, has already had plenty of go-arounds with anti-trust regulators in the U.S. and Europe over the past two decades. But here are three other possible targets in Big Tech, and why many average Americans may not view the recent tech revolution as a net positive.

Video:Should antitrust laws be enforced against tech giants?

Amazon

For all the talk about manufacturing, it’s worth noting that the retail trade industry employs more Americans, with roughly 15.8 million U.S. workers vs. just 12.3 million for manufacturing, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

With Amazon representing nearly half of all e-commerce transactions (and growing) as retailers go bankrupt left and right, there are plenty of people who have found themselves worse off by this “disruption” of retail. And while Amazon does have plenty of employees, thousands of workers are on their feet all day carrying packages around a warehouse for wages that are roughly a third of the average retail worker’s.

It’s no wonder President Trump used the word “monopoly” in 2017 to describe this company.

Sure, Amazon has driven down the cost of everything from flat-screen TVs to shoes to home goods, but that’s cold comfort to millions of retail workers who have lost their jobs over the past several years, or the secondary jobs that are affected, including commercial real estate operators or restaurants in mall food courts.

And with its move last year into fresh foods via the Whole Foods acquisition, it seems inevitable that this trend will only continue.

Read:Facebook election issues push investors toward Twitter and Snap

Facebook

Facebook boasts 239 million monthly users in the U.S. and Canada. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are about 251 million Americans age 18 and older and, according to Canadian stats, about 29 million Canadians age 20 or older. That means the platform theoretically covers 85% of adults in the two countries.

There’s no legal prohibition on simply having an audience, of course, and the staggering reach of Facebook is often seen as an enviable accomplishment by the Silicon Valley crowd. But given the vast amount of fake news on the platform and reports that activity on the platform can be bad for your mental health, is that a good thing?

It’s not just the U.S. government that may get involved, either. British lawmakers recently asked CEO Mark Zuckerberg to answer for his company’s facilitation of bad behavior, after a report revealed 50 million Facebook profiles were compromised during the 2016 election and a London firm worked on Trump campaign ads for the platform.

There was a big stink at the end of 2016, when Zuckerberg & Co. continued to insist that Facebook is not a media company. Well, if you’re a tech company, then it’s much easier to regulate your product without worries about infringing on free speech and freedom of the press, particularly if it can be proven that Facebook is bad for mental health and perhaps even for democracy.

Also about Facebook:Why the company may get a bigger penalty from Wall Street than Washington

Google

With a 74% market share of search, Google GOOG, -1.97% GOOGL, -1.44% is clearly worth noting for its power as a gatekeeper of information. But more importantly, it has a devastating effect on the entire media industry through its operations in advertising as well as search results.

Consider the “snippets” launched by Google a few years ago that serve up answers to queries using content from a website without requiring you to click through. When you search for things like “Kendall Jenner net worth” or “Who fought in the crusades?” you don’t have to leave Google — and most importantly, you don’t visit the site that is providing that info and you never see the ads that allow that site to make money.

That’s bad enough. But worse is that even when users arrive on a site and see an ad, they are still paying Google as a middleman via the tech titan’s digital ad exchange. After all, most advertisers bring their marketing to the tech giant to distribute, and smaller websites rely on the tech giant to serve relevant ads to their audience.

And all this, of course, depends on Google’s algorithm liking a publisher’s content enough to serve it up in the first page or two of search results.

Yes, Facebook is an advertising giant in its own right. And sure, plenty of people get information from social media these days instead of search results. But all of that — and surely whatever is to come — is predicated on the notion of a functional and robust internet where entrepreneurs can set up a website and expect it to succeed on the merit of what that site provides.

If Google is the internet’s kingmaker, that seems awfully problematic.