As a farmer primarily growing cabbage， you’ve been worried recently because your seedlings aren’t growing well. In your free time at home， you’ve been browsing various “agricultural tips” and noticed that the hosts of these videos are all experts. This made you feel confident about finding solutions.
Upon clicking on these videos， you discover that these simple tips often use common household items to effectively solve pest problems and significantly increase crop yields. What’s even better is that they are shared for free， aimed at helping farmers. For instance， spraying vegetables with a white vinegar and water mixture twice is claimed to treat thin celery stalks， high hollowness in cabbage， and increase chive yield. Many experienced farmers are reportedly using this technique.
The comment sections are filled with farmers like yourself， concerned about crop yields and diseases. They ask detailed questions about the water-to-vinegar ratio， the type of vinegar， and the best time for application. The atmosphere is friendly and harmonious.
Thinking about your cabbage fields， you feel a sense of relief and believe there’s a solution. You have white vinegar in your kitchen and can try it tomorrow. After all， can an expert be wrong?
However， as you continue browsing， you notice a surprising abundance of similar magical recipes online. Today it’s white vinegar and water spray for visible vegetable results; tomorrow it’s a salt and water spray for abundant chili harvests; laundry detergent mixed with baking soda claims to effectively deter pests; and some even suggest a pint of beer sprayed on the soil can replace two bags of fertilizer!
It seems like anything from the kitchen can solve any agricultural problem.
As you ponder this， the algorithm recommends more videos about using white vinegar and water. If you aggregate the claimed benefits from these videos， you might conclude that a bottle of white vinegar can solve almost all agricultural challenges. It claims to tackle everything from weed removal and pest control to promoting seedling growth and increasing yields， not only for all vegetables but also for fruit trees and flowers.
A sense of unease begins to creep in. If these simple folk remedies were so universally effective， why would there be massive investments in researching pesticides and fertilizers? It almost makes the complex field of agronomy seem redundant.
The claim， “Spray vegetables twice with diluted white vinegar for guaranteed results!” sounds too good to be true.
You might wonder if anyone actually believes these exaggerated claims. However， many videos boast tens of thousands of likes， saves， and shares. After searching for one video with 49，000 likes and 22，000 saves， data shows it received 2.2 million views， indicating the vast reach of these types of videos.
With growing concern and a critical eye， you decide to re-examine these “farm-helping” videos. You find that while using common ingredients to control pests is indeed a recognized practice， it’s far from the “cure-all” solution presented. A classic example is the “sugar-vinegar liquid，” a mixture of brown sugar， alcohol， vinegar， and water in specific proportions， used to lure and kill insects attracted to these scents. This method， however， has a very limited scope and is certainly not a universal remedy.
Further research reveals that the mainstream application of sugar-vinegar liquid for insect control involves hanging containers containing the mixture within plants， rather than spraying it directly onto crops. Moreover， the precise ratios vary depending on the crop and the target pest. For instance， to attract cotton aphids， a common pest in goji berry plants， a higher proportion of sugar is needed. For fruit flies in cherry orchards， more alcohol is required. It’s a nuanced and precise technique.
These pest control techniques， including the sugar-vinegar liquid， are broadly categorized as non-pesticidal control methods. A study conducted in 2021 by the Fruit Industry Office of Lingtai County， Gansu Province， on apple orchards identified 15 effective non-pesticidal control methods. Beyond the sugar-vinegar liquid， these included installing light traps to lure and kill insects like scarab beetles and tent caterpillars， using sticky traps to attract and capture pests such as aphids， and even simple practices like maintaining ground cleanliness and shallowly tilling the base of trees， as these areas are primary overwintering sites for pests.
Many local agricultural offices regularly publish research and summaries of farming techniques. It’s likely that these official resources， which are based on scientific study and practical application， are far more reliable than short-form videos.
The prevalence of these “farm-helping” videos has both a seemingly reasonable foundation and significant potential for harm. Firstly， older generations of farmers often rely on anecdotal experience without delving into the underlying principles. Secondly， agricultural practices require time to show results， meaning the effectiveness of a method might only become apparent after several days or even longer， creating a window for misinformation to spread.
What happens if one trusts these videos and relies on a single unconventional remedy? Many farmers have shared their disappointing results， often summarized by the single word: “failure.”
So， why are these videos appearing on the internet in such large numbers? These videos， disguised as helpful to farmers， are actually designed to exploit them. From the creator’s persona and video production to the narration and script， these videos are churned out like products on an assembly line， all looking identical and following the same formula. They first establish a persona， often claiming to be agricultural university graduates or researchers， then use simple， direct， and exaggerated “tips” to grab attention. At the end of the videos， they encourage viewers to like and follow to avoid missing out， thereby attracting traffic.
Once a sufficient following is built， it’s time to “harvest” the farmers’ money. Products are listed in their shops， and new videos aggressively promote them， ultimately leading to financial exploitation.
Given their massive scale and highly consistent methodology， this phenomenon is not merely the work of a few individuals but clearly the result of organized operations. CCTV Finance’s “Finance Investigation” exposed “Teacher Shi” from Xianghe Agriculture. Xianghe Agriculture is an e-commerce team that focuses on signing and incubating agricultural influencers to sell agricultural supplies， and Shi is one of its founders.
Teacher Shi admitted that Xianghe Agriculture operates over 1，000 accounts， and the staff who appear on camera and manage operations have no agricultural education background. Most of them， he confessed， have no understanding of agriculture whatsoever. “Everything is fake， it’s all a performance，” he stated frankly. He even boasted to the reporter about earning 400，000 to 500，000 yuan in pure profit from a video with over a million views， estimating a profit of one yuan per view.
Image source: Finance Investigation
The exposure of Xianghe Agriculture reveals just the tip of the iceberg regarding these “farm-helping” videos. However， this model of tying professional knowledge to traffic generation， ultimately leading to factory-style fabrication for profit， did not emerge overnight. Regardless of whether we wish to acknowledge it， this has become a significant social phenomenon. This modus operandi is common in fields with high professional barriers， such as agriculture， law， and medicine.
This process can be broadly categorized into three stages. Fields with high professional knowledge barriers， requiring years of study， are characterized by high entry thresholds and strong professionalism. Consequently， they often hold a special status and possess inherent authority， leading to increased recognition and trust from the public， which easily translates into social media leverage. A segment of articulate professionals capitalized on this initial wave of benefits， producing content primarily focused on professional knowledge with high ethical standards. Their sharing online made them instantly popular.
Image source: bilibili@真的想不出名儿了
While this is true， it requires both a specialized knowledge threshold and an understanding of communication to effectively disseminate this knowledge to the public. Those who succeed are rare. This has led to the emergence of various MCNs (Multi-Channel Networks) to provide internet services for professionals who struggle with public communication. The most basic collaboration model involves third-party agencies or professionals paying a fee， with MCNs handling account operations—a model known as white-label operation. Additionally， there’s the model of white-label operation plus profit sharing， where an initial fee is paid for operations， and subsequent income from sponsored promotions or sales is shared between the parties.
An industry insider who previously worked in a legal MCN revealed that lawyers or law firms inherently need to solicit cases. Historically， this was handled by third-party sales representatives or internal business development teams. With the rise of personal intellectual property (IP) on the internet， more forward-thinking law firms began collaborating with MCNs， aiming to attract online case sources through personal IP. A single successful case generated by an influencer could bring clients to the entire firm， not just an individual lawyer. The specific collaboration models vary， catering to different needs such as seeking exposure， acquiring case leads， or building personal brands.
In terms of content creation， accomplished lawyers often don’t require MCN assistance and can easily discuss a given topic. However， many lawyers struggle to identify key pain points or lack an understanding of internet trends， necessitating MCNs to create content. The quality of content produced by most MCNs is uneven.
“Most of it is plagiarized from online lawyer content， and when presented to the lawyers， they often find it absurd because much of the legal explanations and answers are incomplete or even misleading， designed purely to attract attention. The real harm is never fully explained.”
While doctors and lawyers on short-video platforms have professional certifications that cannot be faked， many individuals produce content that has no relation to their professional expertise or is purely for popularization. Instead， it’s entirely scripted by operating companies， with the individuals simply reading the script and acting as on-screen talent.
Even professions with certification are facing this predicament. For fields without such verification， the situation is even more dire. A fundamental secret was soon uncovered: as long as the “persona” is convincing， it doesn’t matter who the person on screen actually is. Consequently， they began directly hiring actors. A white coat transforms someone into a doctor， a seat in front of a courtroom backdrop makes them a lawyer， and a work uniform designates them as a researcher.
Despite strict credential checks， some illicit actors continue to operate illegally.
Everything from the persona and script to the products themselves is fabricated. The sole objective is to maximize the exploitation of traffic and unsuspecting individuals.
In this script where traffic reigns supreme， genuine experts are sidelined， and authoritative “actors” take center stage. Perhaps in the future， we will all need a discerning eye to differentiate between “actors” and “experts，” as we can never be sure who is truly behind the white coat on screen.
