Now, maybe I will be downvoted for saying (in this climate), but the ability for people to see something suspicious and do something about it is important. You would have the pendulum swing the other way and have people actively tell themselves to ignore potential crime / bad actors, or be unable to report something legitimate?
But the point is that up to recent years, your interactions with police were not anonymous, and you had to (generally) put your name and reputation (or phone number and your voice) behind things that you asserted were true. There was an element of credibility verification in the reporting.
Today, anonymity on the internet, and the ease of creating false (or biased) reports has unleashed a tidal wave of noise and bad information, with no repercussions (reputation-wise, or cost) to the persons creating it. And the effects are all externalized to those who wrongly come under suspicion.
There are some things that need to have a barrier to being done, and taking it online lowers that barrier. Until we figure out what that caused, and how it's to be handled correctly, it's right that these portals disable the features that are causing us these kinds of societal mistakes -- and we actively should choose to slow down our adoption of things that we don't yet understand the full implications of.
That said, this whole topic brings up the question of "At what cost?" We won't see the macroeffects these have on our communities for quite a while. Our base insticts when it comes to how we should react when we see something off, are slowly changing.