You'd be surprised how many people would be mislead by jokes like these and end up thinking that 'high' or 'unlimited' block sizes are a true possibility. The primary result of those is the lack of knowledge, or false knowledge. I do have to admit that the image has a bit of humor to it.
"640 kB ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates ... and look at us now. 
I'd call false analogy on that one though. The blocksize is too big if it does not allow for users to run their own nodes in a decent computer. It's as simple as that.
It's not as simple as that. What does "not being allowed" to run nodes on a decent computer mean? I've seen a lot of people throw around words without actually backing them up with specifics. Does this imply a lack of storage space, an inadequate internet connection/bandwidth, not being able to validate on time? I do recall a presentation where the potential of 'never being able to catch up' as a new node as presented (I think this was Hong Kong Scaling 2015). Just common sense. When the computer is struggling to run the node then it's not viable. If you are not able to work with your computer while you have your core wallet opened, then it's not viable since you would need a secondary computer.
Why does everyone need to run a full node? See section 8 of the bitcoin white paper. Even Satoshi viewed full node operation as a business activity. If you didn't sign up for Satoshi's vision, what exactly did you sign up for? It sounds like you're rather have a toy than a tool for stopping banks from leaching from hardworking citizens via government bailouts. That is first and foremost the mission of bitcoin. Just look at the timing of its creation and the message encoded in the Genesis block.