Right, well that's wrong.
More users won't and can't amount to an increase in nodes; if increasing the blocksize prevents them running a node, they'll end up using web-nodes or non-verifying wallets instead (i.e. reduced/zero censorship resistance).
Last year, I spent time staying in middle-class rural area, in a Western country. Maximum internet speeds were 0.5 MB/s dl, 0.5 MD/s ul. Only last year.
When I tried keeping my full node online in that setting, no-one else could use the same 0.5MB/s internet line for anything except baaaaaaasic webpages. If the webpage had more than a few megabytes of images, it was either too frustratingly slow to load, or just failed outright.
If that's what people in rural Western countries can expect, those in urban 3rd world countries won't be getting alot better. We need those people. So a conservative approach is best for achieving both censorship resistance and decentralisation with this type of system. Decentralisation is a vital component to censorship resistance when you factor in the resources required to use Bitcoin in a censorship resistant fashion.
It's not bitcoins fault that their internet is shitty.
Where I live we have 20mb/s bandwidth with 99.99999999% uptime. Only 1 or maybe 2 days / year the internet is slower, the other times works best.
Those countries should start inviting more ISP in their country, if the internet is so bad, the first ISP that offers big bandwidth will make a ton of money, so there is no logic why the ISP doesnt offer bigger bandwidth, he can make a ton of money and get big marketshare.
Of course unless the legislation sucks, but that is the politicians fault not bitcoin nor the businesses. They need fewer regulations to host good internet.