Language does change and evolve. The misuse and subsequent additional meaning for “literally” to now also be a simile for “figuratively” is a good example of how this isn’t necessarily always a good thing.
I always find this particular example to be somewhat self-contradicting for this reason.
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-lite...
If a change diminishes the clarity, efficiency or even the beauty of the language for no good reason, then it's a bad change, at least for the purposes of communication.
A simile would require a sentence in which "literally" is compared to "figuratively", wouldn't it?
My impression, as a non-native speaker, is that the misused "literally" is to indicate exaggeration, not the quality of being figurative.
Used to be. Now "literally" literally means "figuratively". [1]
> Can literally mean figuratively?
> One of the definitions of literally that we provide is "in effect, virtually—used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible." Some find this objectionable on the grounds that it is not the primary meaning of the word, "with the meaning of each individual word given exactly." However, this extended definition of literally is commonly used and is not quite the same meaning as figuratively ("with a meaning that is metaphorical rather than literal").
That seem to confirm my impression that "literally" is used to indicate exaggeration, rather than being figurative.
Edit: formatting the quote
Complaining that modern people are literally ruining the word literally is a popular internet gripe.
It's just language, you might disagree but usage determines correctness (eventually).