The political compass is an attempt to reduce incredibly complicated political questions into two simple lines, and people accept it because it aligns with oversimplified narratives and cultural preconceptions.
"Liberty" and "authority" have little meaning beyond "good" and "bad." If authority is defined more rigorously, or if we use more neutral terms like "centralization" or public vs private, then it becomes a lot less clear that what we're talking about is contrary to "liberty." The private sector, and private individuals, can be just as restrictive of liberty.
Perhaps the clearest example of this is the American Civil War. The southerners were the champions of decentralization, they spoke constantly about how they were fighting for "liberty" against the supposed tyranny of the northerners - and the reason they wanted "states' rights" and decentralization is that they would be able to keep people enslaved. It was big, centralized government, that evil "authoritarian" force imposing it's authority that resulted in a greater degree of liberty. But that is not just some freak exception.
If someone can't go out at night without fear of being attacked, that person is no more "free" to go out than if they feared legal repercussions. Governments are, at their worst, no different from a criminal organization, and yet there is this tendency to assign special status to restrictions imposed by the law, rather than being on the same level as restrictions imposed by private individuals or organizations.
And again, we can see how "big government" or "authoritarianism" can increase liberty in the context of regulations, of pollution, of food safety, and of untested drugs. If I can trust regulators to stop a restaurant from serving anything unsafe, then I'm free to order anything off the menu, whereas if not, then everything's a gamble and I might feel restricted to foods I expect to be "safe," if I don't avoid the restaurant entirely.
There once was a time when states viewed things like murder as a personal dispute between families, and didn't generally get involved. This led to all kinds of generational feuds, with people killing each other over a long forgotten dispute between their great-grandfathers. Was that "liberty?" Is that something we should idealize and try to return to?
I'm sure there are people who will read this as me being "pro-authoritarian" and ignoring all the bad things done by states. But that's missing the point. The point is not that centralization or state power are always good, the point is that it's not automatically bad. Having a knee-jerk reaction against it is just oversimplifying complicated issues, and doing so in a way that lots of powerful people want you to do. Because the ruling class understands that they can wield private institutions and privatization just as they can wield public institutions.
You can't just blindly apply an idealist ideological framework of "anti-authoritarianism" to every problem and expect that to produce good results. You have to look at things on a case-by-case basis, applying class analysis.