It’s no secret that social media has become a battleground for the exchange of ideas and ideologies. For many liberals, engaging with platforms branded as “right-wing” or “conservative” seems unappealing or even pointless. However, in recent years, a growing number of liberals have chosen to completely disengage from these spaces, often citing toxicity, misinformation, or ideological differences as reasons. At first glance, this withdrawal might seem like a natural reaction to ideological discomfort, but in reality, it represents a subtle yet dangerous form of compliance with authoritarianism.

In Chapter 1 of Timothy Snyder’s On Tyranny, he warns us to “Do not obey in advance.” Snyder explains that totalitarian systems gain power not just through overt oppression, but also through the voluntary compliance of individuals who adapt their behavior to align with the perceived expectations of authority. This “preemptive obedience” enables control without resistance and normalizes the exclusion of dissenting ideas.

Now consider this in the context of liberals disengaging from conservative social media platforms. Walking away from spaces like Truth Social, Gab, or Rumble doesn’t just mean avoiding uncomfortable conversations—it means ceding entire forums of discourse to one side. By refusing to participate, liberals are essentially relinquishing their ability to challenge or counteract the narratives being built in these spaces. Worse, they are allowing these platforms to grow in ideological isolation, creating echo chambers that only deepen polarization.

This is compliance.

When liberals abandon these platforms, they inadvertently reinforce the very divisions they oppose. Instead of engaging in dialogue or challenging misinformation directly, they allow unopposed narratives to flourish. Meanwhile, mainstream platforms, many of which are perceived as more liberal-leaning, set the boundaries of acceptable discourse—while conservative platforms operate with minimal checks, feeding into conspiratorial thinking and radicalization. By retreating, liberals not only forfeit the opportunity to bridge divides but also normalize the siloing of public debate.

Chapter 1 of On Tyranny reminds us that this kind of compliance doesn’t just pave the way for authoritarianism—it strengthens it. By staying away from conservative platforms, liberals are surrendering their role in shaping public discourse. They’re allowing alternative ecosystems to grow without critical oversight or participation, creating a vacuum where radical ideas thrive unchecked. This is exactly how authoritarianism gains ground: when people choose the comfort of avoidance over the discomfort of engagement.

If we are to resist the creeping threat of authoritarianism on all fronts, we must reject the impulse to abandon spaces simply because they’re difficult or uncomfortable. Engage with conservative platforms. Challenge misinformation directly. Participate in the discourse. Every conversation, every rebuttal, and every act of engagement helps break down the walls of ideological silos and ensures that no single narrative dominates unchallenged.

Abandoning the fight is compliance. Staying and engaging is resistance.

Do not obey in advance.