Why I'm not a fan of Big Data

I’ve never been a fan of the term “Big Data” - for several reasons: 

1. It’s not totally clear how to measure “big” in this context. Is "big" a certain number of rows or columns, or is it a specific size on disk? All three quantities can be manipulated.
2. “Big” is a subjective term, with a meaning that changes over time. Data contained on a full hard drive from 20 years ago fits on a keychain today - with room to spare. 
3. “Big Data" sounds suspiciously like “Big Oil”, “Big Tobacco”, and “Big Pharma,” 3 other groups of entities that the media likes to demonize. 
4. More often than not, when somebody uses the term “Big Data”, it’s a marker indicating that said person doesn’t have a good understanding of what they’re talking about.

I personally prefer the terms “Data Science” or “Analytics” unless I’m working in a niche that generally uses another synonym. I’m convinced that “Big Data” has mainly survived because a sizable set of journalists  who don’t understand the field keep using the term.

The downside is that (for better or for worse) the term has stuck. Using said term has become somewhat of a necessary evil for anybody (like me) who wants to communicate with people interested in the topic.

Image couratesy of Scott Kveton, “You Have Died of Dysentery” August 31, 2015 via Flickr; Creative Commons 2.0 Generic