You are confusing anecdotal data (a collection of individual experiences, possibility collected in a systematic way, with structured sampling etc), individual anecdotes ("but when I did went there... ")(which people sometimes call 'anecdata'). It is wrong for anecdata to be given equal weight in an argument to systematic collection, whether qualitative or quantitative. She is not doing either of these things. Instead she explains her history, and then explains the impact of shutting down 3rd party sites has on risk to sex workers. Like many experts in a field, she sees that simple solutions are not going to work.
I do not agree with you. The entire portions of the article that you say are “[explaining] her history” are indeed anecdotes that she is relying on to drive a willingness to then take her other observations more seriously. This clearly qualifies as presenting a collection of anecdotal data as support for a point of view.
To be clear, there is nothing at all wrong with her choosing to do this or with anyone choosing to publish it.
The part I feel is wrong is the attention paid to it and the endorsement that it is valuable. These come at a great expense because they invite people to decide that the emotional mental portrait it paints in their mind is a reasonable basis to form opinions for the general kinds of policies or actions they would support.
> “to explain her position eloquently, to illustrate why exactly people might choose sex work, why it isn't black and white.“
these two items from your comment seem to contradict each other.