> Right, that's the problem

Is it a problem? I think it allows greater flexibility for humor and subtext than ever. It's the people who insist on contextualess interpretation that rain on the parade.

> it's ok to call books "banned" even if they're not

First of all, of course it's ok. Nobody is getting hurt. Second, the books are banned—just not where the bookstore is. I'm not sure how anyone could struggle to understand this. Anyway, what book is banned everywhere? Has any book in history really been banned to such an extent? Or do you really think Dua Lipa would be investing in a bookstore that would immediately be shut down? Being upset at this just seems like a waste of energy.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that for the most part it's the people who do believe in canonical definitions that get hurt by thinking they communicate clearly, by allowing others who do have a more flexible understanding of semantics undermine and fool them. We should teach words as polysemous by default so as to ensure they're able to function in the modern world. Hell, a great deal of wordplay can only be enjoyed if you're able to hold multiple definitions in your head at once.

For instance, "literally" notoriously connotes "figuratively".... sometimes. This is actually quite an old phenomenon that well predates the internet. But it allows ironic commentary on the speaker's perspectives that forces the audience to interpret the phrase in a broader context.

There is certainly a role for formal, unambiguous speech—in technical communication, in legal briefs, in analysis more generally—but it's not hard to see why people enjoy straying far beyond that in service of fluid, natural, and concise communication.