While "literally" has indeed been historically used in the sense of adding emphasis and thus is not a new phenomenon, this is not why this vexing definition was added to the dictionary. The general standard for a word's inclusion is whether it is widely used or not. It would be much easier to accept new inclusions or definitions if there was a distinction made between generally accepted usage as a result of conscious choice and generally accepted usage as a result of unmitigated stupidity.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Kiersyn.
While "literally" has indeed been historically used in the sense of adding emphasis and thus is not a new phenomenon, this is not why this vexing definition was added to the dictionary. The general standard for a word's inclusion is whether it is widely used or not. It would be much easier to accept new inclusions or definitions if there was a distinction made between generally accepted usage as a result of conscious choice and generally accepted usage as a result of unmitigated stupidity.