Core Viewpoint - The recent controversy involving a village official selling millet online and being accused by Xiaomi of "associating with Lei's marketing" has sparked significant public interest. Xiaomi clarified that their complaint was not against the use of the term "millet" or the sale of millet products, but rather against the malicious imitation and defamation of their executives [1][10]. Group 1: Xiaomi's Response - Xiaomi's spokesperson emphasized that the claims made in the viral video were completely false and a distortion of facts, clarifying that the complaint was aimed at protecting the company's reputation and not at restricting the use of the term "millet" [1][2]. - The company has a history of supporting agricultural initiatives and rural revitalization, having donated to schools and farms in various provinces including Guizhou, Yunnan, Hunan, Hebei, and Xinjiang [1][2]. Group 2: Legal and Social Implications - The company called for a collective effort against false online information and actions that provoke public sentiment, aiming to create a healthier online discourse [2][3]. - The involved village official, known as "Xiao Feng," later issued an apology, acknowledging that his video had caused an impact on Xiaomi and wasted social resources, and committed to regulating his online behavior in the future [6][10]. Group 3: Details of the Complaint - The complaint against the village official included allegations of using exaggerated expressions and imitating Xiaomi's executives in a misleading manner, which could confuse the public and damage the company's image [4][19]. - Legal experts indicated that if the video used Lei Jun's name or likeness, it could potentially infringe on his rights, including name and reputation [19].

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding a village official selling millet online and the subsequent complaint from Xiaomi has sparked significant public interest, with Xiaomi clarifying that their complaint was not about the use of the term "millet" but rather about defamation and misrepresentation of their brand [1][2][4]. Group 1: Xiaomi's Response - Xiaomi's spokesperson stated that the claims made in a viral video were completely false and distorted, emphasizing that the complaint was aimed at protecting the company's reputation and not at restricting the use of the word "millet" [1][2]. - The company has a history of supporting rural development and has made donations to schools and farms in various provinces, including Guizhou, Yunnan, and Xinjiang, as part of their social responsibility initiatives [1][3]. Group 2: Incident Details - The village official, known as Feng Yuquan, created a video that allegedly mocked Xiaomi's CEO Lei Jun and used misleading information, which led to the complaint regarding defamation [4][9]. - Following the backlash, Feng issued an apology, acknowledging that his video had caused a negative impact on Xiaomi and wasted social resources, and he committed to regulating his online behavior in the future [6][13]. Group 3: Legal Implications - Legal experts indicated that if the video used Lei Jun's name or likeness in a derogatory manner, it could potentially infringe on his name and reputation rights [19].

Group 1 - The incident involving the village secretary of Xichujia Village in Rongcheng City, Shandong, selling millet online has attracted significant attention, particularly after a complaint from Xiaomi's legal team led to the removal of his promotional video [1][3] - The village secretary, Feng Yukuang, claims he is selling agricultural products and has called on Xiaomi to provide a way for local farmers to sustain their livelihoods [1][3] - Xiaomi's customer service stated that they do not have the authority to prevent others from selling millet and that the situation needs to be reported to relevant authorities [1][3] Group 2 - As of December 12, Feng Yukuang's account had cleared all videos and promotional content related to the sale of millet [1][3] - Local government officials confirmed Feng Yukuang's position as the village secretary but stated they were not aware of the specific circumstances surrounding the incident [1][3]