Your comment is mostly addressing what I refer to as "data skews, misuse of stats, and external factors", and is what the article is about. Yes, those are huge

Your comment is mostly addressing what I refer to as "data skews, misuse of stats, and external factors", and is what the article is about. Yes, those are huge issues, but they have little to do with data size. I'm confused why you don't agree with my phrasing. To be clear, and from your comment I think you already know this, p-value is not a measure of confidence. P-value is a terrible metric that jumbles confidence with effect size. As you get more data you have the ability to properly detect small effect sizes with confidence; hence, the part of my comment you quoted and seem to disagree with? But people who don't have experience working with large datasets see a low p-value and often think they have a big effect size with reasonable confidence instead of a small effect size with very high confidence. Chalk this up to a "misuse of stats" :)