No, it's a sign that it's a quote taken from interview whose context was a woman being prevented from relating her harassment story by a non-disparagement clause.

The article is written to present non-disparagement agreements as being exclusively a response to harassment complaints.

Most of the article talks about harassment complaints. The few parts that hint at non-disparagement clauses seeing more general use are immediately followed by tie-ins to... guess what, harassment complaints. Like the quote in the gp comment.

There's no hint at what else might be getting buried, no hint that there even could be other things getting buried, and certainly no attempt to quantify what's getting buried.

There's just implicit assumptions, of the sort that are easy to not notice and so just blindly accept, tying these agreements to, and so reinforcing, the current hotbutton issue.

I don't like things that favor feedback loops over (attempts to gather) data.

> The article is written to present non-disparagement agreements as being exclusively a response to harassment complaints.

THat's like saying an article about french fries neglects the non-fries uses of potatoes.

And if hamburgers were the current hotbutton topic, I rather imagine I'd find an article about potatoes and how they're used to make fries (and no mention of them being good for anything else) similarly annoying.

Potatoes are more than just a side item for hamburgers dammit! ;)