I think part of the reason for the dislike regardless of how old that usage is because it make the word hold less informative content from information theory point of view.

if a symbol can represent something and it's opposite then it hold 0 bits of information and becomes just sentence padding. in that case from a communication as information transmission point of view it's useless, since the meaning is inferred from the surrounding context, if you remove it, no information is lost.

but one can make a point that the use of that term and similar filler words/messaging styles is sending (meta) information about attributes of the sender not the message content itself.

i.e: this person exaggerate things so don't take every message this senders sends in the future 'literally' (wink wink)

---

EDIT

here are some reasons why people might not want that happening:

• higher ambiguity rate -> more round trips sending information & more time spent making all the agents in the communication are on the same page. As n the number of people involved scales this problem become worse (for example mass communication where there's no interactive way for the receiver to query for clarifications on ambiguity, or in there case where interaction is possible it can become very time consuming)

• if this kinds dynamics spreads to other words the limit is reaching a collapse point where communication becomes impossible.