This is not a criticism of the article, which is actually very balanced, but I get very impatient with people who attempt to proscribe perfectly legitimate usage. "Literally" can be used as an intensifier, regardless of the truth of the statement it intensifies. People have been doing it for a long time. You can avoid it in your own writing if you hate it.

The article's point (in my reading anyway) is that "literally" sounds a bit silly when used to intensify a clichéed or fantastic statement. I'd say that's true. Of course, that means that "literally" can have the opposite effect than the one intended. Instead of intensifying your statement it can, by making it sound funny, unintentionally defuse it instead. Oh, the irony.

I love the English language.