This is the thing that bothers me about her videos, though. Certainly established science should be challenged when there is the potential that something isn't quite right. (Science itself may be "perfect", but it is performed and chronicled by flawed, biased humans.)

But I feel like she takes a contrarian view just for the sake of being contrarian, so it's hard to tell which of her ideas actually have merit, and which simply exist to challenge the status quo, even when the status quo is conclusively proven.

Edit: that said, I really do want to believe this! The speed of light being an absolute limit to how fast we can travel (or even communicate), means most of the universe (even most of the galaxy) will be forever out of reach to us. And that's kinda depressing. Unfortunately, physics doesn't care if I'm sad or happy about it.

Edit2: on the other hand (I wrote the above after only having watched have the video, shame on me), I do find compelling her idea that some mathematical constructs (like special relativity) inherently cannot fully describe reality (in SR's case, SR doesn't include gravity). So saying "special relativity says FTL travel causes time paradoxes and thus cannot be possible" may be true, but since SR can't fully describe reality (hell, neither can GR), maybe it just doesn't matter. That doesn't prove that FTL travel/communication is actually possible, but at least suggests that we shouldn't be so adamant about it being impossible. But who knows, IANAPhysicist, etc.