There is nothing wrong with increasing block size, but if you were to increase to that extent, then no one except a selected few can run a node because they are prohibitively expensive. Miners can only mine if they're fast enough, which would mean further centralization as they need to achieve the lowest latency possible to reduce orphans. Complete centralization of Bitcoin defeats the very purpose of it, and putting the control of it to a selected few only serves to discourage people from using it.
Great explanation by @ranochigo and confirmation of this words can be seen with forks that tried to make ''better'' bitcoin and instead created more centralized junk.
For example, 3 mining pools (ViaBTC, AntPool and one more) for Bcash are having over 75% of total hashrate, and situation is even worse for bsv scam with 2 mining pools controlling all hashrate and they are constantly udner 51% attacks.
We can at least thank all those forks that serve more as testing ground so we can see what effect it could have on Bitcoin and what we should avoid doing.
It's not impossible to imagine that block size will also change for Bitcoin in future, but it must be carefully implemented after doing deep investigation as a part of some bigger change, but result will be new forks and I think that people are a bit tired of forks.