they generally don't call it
facilitated communication, because that specific method has mostly(?) fallen out of favor after it was scientifically discredited, but in her bio she says she learned to communicated using
the rapid prompting method (RPM), which is similar to FC, and in her speech she says she typed it with the assistance of a communications partner, ie another human, which is a red flag. I don't want to be a buzzkill, but there are serious concerns about how much these human-assisted methods of communication are actually producing speech from the non-verbal person instead of it being directed (subconsciously or otherwise) by the assistant. In theory, it should be very easy to test (like, separately give the non-verbal person and the assistant different information and see which version is recalled), but the proponents are
for some reason resistant to this kind of scientific scrutiny. Like, it's really inspiring to believe that a non-verbal child is secretly harboring a brilliant mind, full of poems and philosophical musings, etc. and they simply need a different way to express them, but if you're just unknowingly putting words in a disabled person's mouth, that's profoundly sad.
Anyway, I don't want to totally dump on this girl who I just learned about an hour ago and make it sound like she's a fraud. I don't know her specific capabilities or anything, we all know autism is a spectrum, and I don't proclaim to be an expert.
www.npr.org
www.rollins.edu
