All I heard was that the block size was not increased and this led to the creation of Bitcoin Cash. It was a fork but it is an altcoin (shit coin) while bitcoin remain the bitcoin.
But I am thinking recently that if the block size is increased, more transactions can be processed and the mempool will not be congested. If the block size can be in a way that 1 sat/vbyte transactions can all be processed in the next block, will this not be good?
If the block size is increased, what is its disadvantage to bitcoin network and miners?
I understand of people who have their interest in mining and related business and don't want transaction fees to be increased but I don't understand of those who are regular users and vote against it. I'll be frank and say that another problem is, what block size is the good size? Accepted by everyone? Some argue it's 4MB, some argue it's 1GB

Some ridiculous answers don't make any sense but it's still a good question.
Block space needs to be limited to ensure bitcoin's long term survival.
Block space needs to be limited but not in a way that we don't update the limit that was set a decade ago. It's not 2009 anymore. There is a huge difference between demand that we had in 2009 and what we have in 2023. We can't function with 2009's settings. Can someone imagine working today, doing programming/visual stuff with 2009's computer?
I think that flexible block size, i.e. block size increases and decreases according to number of transactions, that means, if there is a 100K transaction, block next block includes 5% of them, then 5% of what's left and so on. At the same time upcoming transactions are added too. If number of transactions decrease, so will the block size, that means that there will still be a competition to get transaction included in the next block and fees won't be as low as 1 sat/vByte. But is this possible to implement in Bitcoin? Ich habe keine Ahnung (I have no idea).
By the way, yesterday, miners were collecting more reward from fees than from blocks alone.