The internet has allowed us to see what would have otherwise remained unseen. Everyone with access to a smartphone, a Twitter or Facebook account now has the ability to report on what is happening anywhere, at any given moment: a comet crashing, bridge cables snapping, a subway bombing. For this fact alone, I love it.

But I’ve had an increasing personal discomfort on one front. Within the bounds of journalism, the fact that someone accused another of having done something wrong has never been enough to warrant an attack. At the very least, you are required to get the other side of the story – but this principle doesn't apply online.

Revenge porn is the latest internet vigilantism trend to garner attention. Most would agree that it just isn't right. But long before reaching such horrific heights, we are already at the stage where anyone is fair game: identifying people who have done "something wrong" by picture, name or car registration is now OK, and posting photographs online is now accepted practice for accusing individuals of unsubstantiated grievances. This applies to the idiot who swerved in front of us, the imbecile who pulled up in the disabled parking space, the self-important twit who jumped the line, even the cheating lover.

There are thousands of Facebook pages and many standalone websites dedicated to accusing people of just about anything you care to think about. There’s the outing of ice cream cake thieves by gelato makers Messina on its Facebook page, clearly identified through a security camera photo and an arrow declaring “cake thief!”. There’s a "dob (inform) a bad driver" page, and the even more specific "Perth bad drivers" page. That's not to mention the many "shame a homewrecker" websites, or the "dob in a horse rug terrorist" website, where you can dob on those who are cruel to their horses via over-rugging. The examples are endless. Most of the time, the "offenders" are clearly identified by face, number plate ... or horse.

A Facebook page shaming alleged bad drivers. Photograph: Facebook

Calling those people out must be quite cathartic, but as we upload their identifiable faces and number plates who, if anyone, is getting their side of the story?

I thought about this when a colleague recently shared a picture of a person who apparently had committed a driving offence. Showing the woman standing rather startled-looking at her car door, the photograph provided no evidence that she had actually done what she was accused of; it simply captured her face and number plate. I asked my friend why she had shared it, stating my dislike for this particular form of public shaming (unfounded or otherwise). Her reply: 100,000 or so people had done so before her and what, if any, difference would another share make?

It matters because we’re not complaining to our inner circle anymore. The internet is a megaphone. It is wrong to assume that you’re just talking to your friends and followers even if your account is locked (those who you are talking to most likely do not.) The failure to grasp the power of social media when airing grievances and identifying individuals, justifiably or not, can have serious consequences for both those doing the shaming and those being shamed.

Take the example of Adria Richards, who was quite rightly unhappy when she overheard two male attendees at the PyCon conference make sexist jokes in a private conversation earlier this year. She registered her displeasure with a picture of the two men and tweeted “not cool”. Richards had 9,000 followers so her complaint quickly got a 100 RTs. One of the men lost his job, which led to more outrage – and then Richards lost her job too. To me Richards was right to complain, but not to publicly identify those she was talking about without their right to reply.

It is a shame that often, the people who speak out about this type of internet vigilantism or “trial by social media” are those who should be watched, questioned and held to account for their authority: our police force. Internet vigilantism does have a place and a very important public function: to keep those in power accountable. During the Mardi Gras this year, a video showing an 18 year-old youth mishandled and thrown to the ground by a police officer caused justifiable public outrage. The video saw an investigation referred to the professional standards command. The distinction is that police have power, and we now have a way to keep that in check. Ordinary citizens do not have that privilege. It’s an abuse of power to turn cameras on each other and use the megaphone the internet provides to publically shame others who don’t have a right to defend themselves.

Before you hit share or RT on a post that clearly identifies a person, perhaps it’s worth asking about the other side of the story. Else it’s just a one-way power play, which makes us no better than the cop at the Mardi Gras who put his foot on the back of a young man and pushed him down. It’s also exactly the sort of abuse the internet can help us fight against.