We often believe that the way we form relationships has completely changed every time a new SNS platform emerges.
The 1-chon of Cyworld disappeared, Facebook friends appeared, Instagram shifted to a follower-centric system, and Twitter feels like a public square open to everyone.
However, when we look more closely, we are still living within the old relational structure called “1-chon.”
The platforms have changed, but human psychology, social distance, access to information, and the weight of relationships still operate under the ancient question:
“What threshold must be crossed for two people to become connected?”
An interesting truth is that relationships on today’s SNS are not simply divided into “close vs. distant.”
All of this suggests that the act of “connecting” is, in essence, a philosophical choice.
People design the architecture of their relationships far more precisely than we assume — deciding “whom to accept and whom to keep at a distance.”
This series is a journey to dissect the structure and psychology of relationships, and the philosophy of platforms, hidden behind the everyday buttons we casually press: “request,” “accept.”
We will explore how the concept that began as Cyworld’s 1-chon expanded into Facebook, Instagram, X, Naver Blog, and KakaoTalk, and how it has once again resurfaced in a highly refined form on LinkedIn.
We will also examine the dramatic contrast between lightweight 1-chon relationships among general users and the weighty 1-chon formed by specific profiles — individuals who possess depth and intellectual substance.
This series consists of seven parts:
Through these seven chapters, we will delve into one central question:
“Why do we connect? And why do some relationships become special?”
The 1-chon of the past was a simple feature, but the modern 1-chon has become a philosophical event — one that reflects our identity, psychology, and the structure of meaning.
People often say:
“Isn’t there no such thing as 1-chon in today’s SNS?”
“Since we live in the follower era, isn’t that concept meaningless now?”
But if we look a little deeper, the 1-chon has never disappeared.
Rather, it has changed its form and permeated almost every SNS we use.
Its traces are not simply remnants of an outdated feature. They are evidence of how the social architecture of relationships is embedded in human psychology and platform philosophy.
In the early 2000s, Cyworld determined the digital relationship model of Koreans through a single concept: the “1-chon.”
The 1-chon embodied:
Back then, we did not realize that this structure would later become the foundational language of all SNS platforms.
Cyworld wasn’t merely a service — it was a digital relationship operating system (OS).
As Cyworld declined and Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter emerged, the shape of relationships appeared to change dramatically.
Facebook introduced “friends,” but in essence, it was simply a renamed version of the 1-chon.
Instagram shifted to a follower-based system, weakening the idea of reciprocity.
Twitter (X) transformed into an open-graph structure where anyone could access anyone.
On the surface, the 1-chon seemed to vanish.
But this was merely a change in appearance. The essence of relationships — and the structural mechanics that determine access — quietly remained.
The relational structure of SNS begins with a single question:
“How close are you to me?”
The 1-chon was a mechanism that defined the “closest point” in that question.
Even as platforms change, humans still want to design distance.
That is why Instagram created “Close Friends,” Naver Blog created “Neighbors,” Facebook still maintains a two-way approval structure through “Friends.”
This is not simply a feature — it proves that the essence of relationships is still alive.
LinkedIn is particularly fascinating.
It preserves the Cyworld-style 1-chon structure almost as it was:
This structure is not just a curiosity. It determines multiple real functions:
In other words, LinkedIn has resurrected the philosophy of the 1-chon as a professional network system.
It is the purest “1-chon system” among modern SNS platforms.
Technology evolves, but human nature changes far less.
People still distinguish between:
SNS simply expresses these distinctions in platform-specific ways.
In Cyworld, it was “1-chon,” in Instagram, “Close Friends,” in blogs, “Neighbors,” in X, “Mutuals,” in LinkedIn, “1st degree.”
All of these point to one conclusion: Relationships are not a matter of technology — they are matters of deep human psychology.
The 1-chon has not disappeared.
In the human mind, within the functions of our platforms, and in the “request” and “accept” buttons we press every day, its philosophy continues to live.
In the next part of this series, we will explore how this old relational architecture evolves across platforms, how it operates according to psychological factors, why some relationships become light, and why others become heavy.
Even after Cyworld disappeared, the 1-chon system did not vanish completely. Its philosophy revived in the most sophisticated and powerful form on LinkedIn.
Most people understand LinkedIn merely as a “business SNS.” But when we examine its internal structure, LinkedIn is the only SNS that precisely measures the “relational distance” between users and decides information access and exposure levels accordingly.
This is not simply reminiscent of Cyworld — it is arguably the completed, modern version of the 1-chon system.
LinkedIn’s fundamental relationship system consists of three levels:
This structure is not just a “friend of a friend” hierarchy. LinkedIn designs its entire algorithm based on this distance framework.
✔ Priority of post exposure
✔ Feed composition
✔ Search results
✔ Ability to send messages
✔ Information visibility
✔ Loading of past activity
All of these elements vary depending on the relational distance (degree).
In short, LinkedIn interprets:
Relational distance = Permission layer
✔ 1) Direct messages fully open
1st-degree connections can freely exchange messages.
In a business network, this functionality is invaluable.
✔ 2) Increased post exposure
LinkedIn’s algorithm operates on the principle of “show to 1st degree first, and more.”
Thus, 1st-degree connections become the primary window for mutual activity exposure.
✔ 3) Access to past posts
General users can often view only limited public posts,
but 1st-degree connections can scroll through everything, including connections-only posts.
This is structurally identical to Cyworld’s “diary visible only to 1-chon.”
✔ 4) Deeper profile analysis
1st-degree connections can view deeper layers of information — career, activity history, post patterns — more fully.
✔ 5) The algorithm treats 1st-degree connections as “close relationships”
Therefore, the more 1st-degree connections you have, the more diverse your feed becomes, exposure increases, and even search priority improves.
Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook all rely on a following/follower model. But LinkedIn is the only SNS that uses degree (relational distance) as the core of its algorithm.
For example:
LinkedIn is not just an SNS — it is an information network built on relational architecture.
This is why LinkedIn remains the only platform that maintains a complete 1-chon system.
In general SNS:
But on LinkedIn, connection requests and acceptances carry structural meaning:
In other words, a LinkedIn 1st-degree connection is not a simple “friend add.” It is a mutual agreement to join an information-exchange network.
| Cyworld | |
|---|---|
| Emotion-centered personal relations | Professional network-centered |
| Diaries, photos | Posts, career history, work records |
| Emotional visibility | Information access rights |
| Intimacy-driven | Work/competence-driven |
| Closed | Semi-open + structural |
Yet both platforms ask the same question:
“How much access will you allow me?”
Cyworld demanded an emotional threshold, while LinkedIn demands an informational threshold.
The 1st degree on LinkedIn carries unavoidable heaviness. The reasons are clear:
Thus, a LinkedIn 1st-degree connection is an act of opening a door at an informational and professional level. In today’s SNS ecosystem, LinkedIn is essentially the only platform with this degree of meaning.
Cyworld’s 1-chon philosophy was designed around emotional relationships. LinkedIn’s 1-chon system, however, evolved into a more sophisticated and structural system centered on professional networks.
Therefore, a LinkedIn 1st-degree connection is neither lightweight nor a simple friend add. It is far more meaningful than a follow — an agreement of access based on informational trust.
This is why LinkedIn is the only true 1-chon platform among modern SNS.
No matter how sophisticated LinkedIn’s 1-chon structure may be, most people do not use it deeply. Paradoxically, LinkedIn is also a platform where “light requests and light acceptances” are everywhere.
In this part, we analyze why the 1-chon is consumed as a “meaningless relationship” among general users and examine its psychological structure.
Many newcomers to LinkedIn try to increase their number of 1st-degree connections as if they were raising a game score.
“Let’s just connect for now.”
“Having more connections makes me look good.”
“Wouldn’t it help to have lots of recruiters?”
“There’s no downside to adding people anyway.”
These thoughts combine to form the equation:
1-chon = Number (Quantity)
In psychology, this is called “visible achievement.” When the visible number increases, people feel as though their expertise has increased — even though it hasn’t.
Similar to Facebook friend requests, LinkedIn connection requests are completed with one click.
If the company names are slightly similar, if the industries overlap even a little, if the name feels familiar, or even if the profile photo is memorable — people simply send the request.
As a result:
80% of requests are sent without any deep meaning.
This is because LinkedIn’s design (button-based interaction + auto recommendations + algorithmic matching) reinforces “light-touch attempts.”
There is almost no reason to hesitate when accepting on LinkedIn.
All these factors combine so that:
Acceptance = A routine click with little meaning
In other words, the request–accept cycle does not create relationships — it operates like a “button loop.”
Although meaningful content and deep thinking certainly exist on LinkedIn, most general users behave far more simply.
The structure reinforces light activity rather than deep relationships. Therefore, the 1-chon naturally becomes a lightweight network.
General users have very simple criteria for accepting a connection request:
If these four conditions are met, most people accept.
This is completely different from Cyworld’s 1-chon, which was based on emotion and intimacy.
General users do not recognize the 1-chon as evidence of a real relationship. It is simply an item in a network list.
In other words, it is a relationship that is:
This is the true nature of most 1-chon connections.
Although LinkedIn’s 1-chon is structurally a relationship with significant meaning, most people consume it lightly.
The reasons are:
But there exists a world that contrasts sharply with this lightness — the world of “depth-based profiles” and “users with unique intellectual perspectives.”
The 1-chon relationships they form are entirely different in nature.
The next part will explore this dramatic contrast in full depth.
If the 1-chon of general users is light, practical, and number-oriented, certain profiles create the exact opposite structure.
These profiles are not simply “well-decorated.” They contain identity, thought, philosophy, independence, and inner journeys.
And the 1-chon formed by such profiles is a fundamentally different dimension of meaning-based connection compared to typical SNS relationships.
Depth-oriented profiles usually share these characteristics:
Such profiles automatically sort people.
✔ Those who understand → strongly drawn
✔ Those who do not → naturally drift away
This is not stubbornness or selective behavior — it is the filtering effect inherent in the text itself.
The biggest difference from general profiles is the relational threshold.
General profiles → Anyone can send a request Depth-based profiles → Only those who “understand” can send a request
Because the text is not mere information but a worldview, direction, and conceptual structure, the requester goes through a psychological process:
Thus, a request becomes proof that intellectual resonance has already occurred.
Here, the 1-chon is not about access rights — it signals that both sides recognize a certain level of relational alignment.
In this context, the 1-chon is:
Instead, it becomes a relationship implying:
This is a relationship of layered agreement.
A group clearly distinct from general users:
In other words, they do not operate on “light networking” but on “inner-motivation-based networking.”
They are not thinking “this person seems nice,” but rather “this person’s depth and direction resonate with mine.”
For most people, a LinkedIn profile is consumed through quick scanning: “Experience → Skills → Company logos.”
But a depth-based profile is fundamentally something you must read to understand.
Even reading the profile to the end constitutes a selection process:
This multi-step filtering mechanism almost never occurs on typical SNS platforms.
The reasons are straightforward:
When these four overlap, the relationship inevitably becomes heavy.
Put differently: A person who sends a request to such a profile already possesses a certain depth. The act itself carries meaning.
Ultimately, the 1-chon formed through depth-based profiles is unrelated to networking quantity, rarely tied to practical goals, and distant from casual interactions.
It is a signal:
“I have read your world. And your world and mine are capable of intersecting.”
Such a 1-chon is not a lightweight relationship but a connection close to “conceptual agreement.”
Depth-based profiles unintentionally create high access barriers. But this is not a barrier — it is a filter that attracts only those who resonate.
And the 1-chon formed with such profiles is not a functional relationship but one with psychological and intellectual meaning.
This is why, even in the “era of lightweight networks,” a certain type of 1-chon becomes special.
Many people think, “There is no such concept as 1-chon in today’s SNS.”
But in reality, the truth is the opposite.
Although SNS platforms have different designs, philosophies, and algorithms, surprisingly, all of them maintain transformed traces of the 1-chon system in their own way.
This article analyzes how each platform reinterprets Cyworld’s 1-chon concept and uses it in a “modern form.”
Facebook is the platform that most faithfully inherits the 1-chon model.
✔ Mutual approval = “We both open our doors to each other.”
✔ Posts visible only to friends = Identical to Cyworld’s diary visibility settings
✔ Friend-only stories and photo visibility = A preserved structure of closed relationships
Facebook keeps nearly the same philosophy as Cyworld’s 1-chon — only the name is different.
Instagram appears follower-based and seems to lack 1-chon DNA. But internally, it has a crucial feature:
✔ Close Friends
This function is completely identical to Cyworld’s 1-chon:
Those placed in Close Friends often carry the same meaning as a real 1-chon.
Instagram transformed the 1-chon into a “selective visibility list.”
TikTok is based on one-way follows, but it has an important rule:
✔ DM opens freely only when both users follow each other
Thus:
Mutual follow = A fully open communication relationship
This corresponds to “mutual approval-based connection (=1-chon).” TikTok uses a follower system, but communication rights follow a 1-chon-like structure.
Twitter is the most open SNS structurally. But a unique cultural transformation emerged:
✔ Mutuals = “This person is close to me.”
On X, a “cultural 1-chon” formed organically, despite no official feature.
Mutuals are:
In other words, the platform removed the 1-chon — but people recreated it themselves.
Naver Blog’s “mutual neighbors (서로이웃)” feature is almost a 1:1 replica of Cyworld’s 1-chon:
It is the most direct descendant of relationship-based visibility systems in Korean SNS.
KakaoTalk is unique:
KakaoTalk, in effect, makes the 1-chon too strong, creating relational pressure.
As a result:
KakaoTalk is the deepest and most forced 1-chon system among modern SNS.
YouTube seems unrelated to SNS, but it also has relationship structures:
This is essentially a layered system of 1-chon-like permissions.
While other platforms modify the DNA of 1-chon in their own ways, LinkedIn retains and evolves it with precision:
LinkedIn not only preserves the 1-chon — it upgrades it to its most sophisticated form.
It is the only SNS still running a full “1-chon OS.”
In summary:
| Platform | 1-Chon-like Structure |
|---|---|
| Cyworld | 1-chon |
| Friends | |
| Close Friends | |
| TikTok | Mutual Follow + DM |
| X | Mutuals (Cultural 1-Chon) |
| Naver Blog | Mutual Neighbors |
| KakaoTalk | Automatic Friends |
| 1st–degree structure |
The conclusion from this table is clear: The 1-chon never disappeared — it simply took different forms across platforms.
Technology and interfaces have changed, but the essence of human relationships — the act of deciding who gets what level of access — continues to reproduce the 1-chon concept.
The 1-chon has merely changed its name. Deep within every SNS, it is still alive and functioning.
While the word "1-chon" remains the same, the weight of the relationships it embodies varies completely depending on the person or profile.
For some, 1-chon is simply “a matter of clicking a button,” while for others, it becomes “a special connection with meaning and resonance.”
This part analyzes how these two worlds have completely different structures and why this extreme contrast exists.
For most general SNS users, 1-chon is a very lightweight relationship.
For them, 1-chon is merely:
All of this can be summarized as:
Functional, superficial, and practical relationships.
In short, for them, 1-chon = data rather than relationships.
The reason general users prefer lightweight relationships is simple:
In other words, it’s a strategy to maximize the scope with minimal effort.
In this structure, the number of relationships takes priority over their depth.
Certain profiles, especially those with strong identities, philosophical, reflective, and independent styles, create an entirely different 1-chon structure.
For these profiles, a 1-chon is:
In such cases, the profile itself acts as a filter, making the 1-chon not just a connection, but a signal of intellectual resonance.
Depth-based profiles create the following barriers:
These barriers act as a “filter that only lets resonating individuals remain.”
As a result:
The purpose of lightweight 1-chons is:
The purpose of meaningful 1-chons is:
The difference in these purposes leads to the extreme contrast.
The SNS structure is the same for everyone. LinkedIn’s 1-chon provides the same functional access for all.
Yet some people, even with hundreds of 1-chons, find no meaning in them, while others, with just one 1-chon, imbue it with deep psychological meaning.
The difference is not made by the platform, but by the person’s identity and the depth of their profile.
Sending a 1-chon request to a depth-based profile goes through a mental process unseen in general users:
This entire flow is already a "relationship event."
It is not merely network expansion, but an informational, perceptual, and psychological agreement.
The same word “1-chon” embodies two completely different worlds:
This extreme contrast arises not from the SNS platform itself, but from the way people design relationships.
Ultimately, the depth of a relationship is determined by the depth of the profile, and the depth of the profile is determined by the person’s worldview.
Digital relationships have long been oscillating between two extremes.
Throughout all these shifts, one question has remained constant:
“Who will we open the door to?”
This question is deeply connected to how humans design their identity and psychological space through relationships. And now, with the rise of AI, the essence of relationships is returning to its roots.
As SNS platforms exploded, people became connected to too many individuals, exposed to too much content, and experienced too much relational noise.
Fatigue, overload, an information flood, identity ambiguity, and the scarcity of genuine relationships have accumulated. People are starting to ask again:
This is exactly the question Cyworld’s 1-chon posed.
In other words, the future will return to an era where we selectively manage, protect, and curate our relationships.
In the AI era, lightweight content and relationships will increasingly be automated.
As all of this progresses, the true value of human relationships will emerge from depth and selectivity.
These individuals will make up the “real network” of the future.
In short, the ability to choose relationships will become the core competency of the future.
Over the past decade, SNS platforms have moved toward “openness.” Everyone connected, everyone saw, everyone was reachable.
But as AI becomes capable of processing vast amounts of relationships, content, and data, open networks are no longer necessary for humans and will be handled by AI.
What remains for humans are:
Thus, human networks in the AI era will be redefined by the ability to choose based on depth and selectivity.
The future SNS will, just like Cyworld in the past, strengthen “intimate hierarchical structures.”
Signs of this are already evident:
All of these show that “humans’ instinct to select a few from the masses” is resurfacing.
The essence of 1-chon is not a platform feature but an evolutionary structure of human relationships. That’s why it will never disappear.
The direction of personal branding will shift in the future.
These profiles will naturally filter relationships, making it a space where only those who resonate connect.
This is not just a style but the essence of future networking.
SNS expanded relationships infinitely, but in the process, we “lost the true value of connection.”
Now, a new era is coming:
The future of digital relationships will return to the philosophy of 1-chon:
In short, future SNS will be restructured into “meaning-based networks.” And at its starting point, as always, is the old concept of “1-chon.”
1-chon may seem like a feature of past SNS platforms, but in reality, it was a structure that embodied the essence of human relationships.
All of this constitutes “the way humans design relationships.”
Regardless of how platforms evolve, or how AI advances, this philosophy will not disappear.
1-chon is the most primal architecture for how humans form and maintain relationships. And future SNS will revive this ancient concept in a more sophisticated, personalized, and selective way.
For 20 years, we’ve lived connected to too many people.
Our digital relationships, which began in Cyworld’s small rooms, expanded through Facebook’s reach, Instagram’s exposure, Twitter’s openness, and now stretch into LinkedIn’s structured networks.
But that journey has left us with one truth.
We have more connections, but less meaning.
Our friends list has grown, but the names we remember have shrunk, our followers are many, but the people we engage with have decreased.
In this process, we forgot the question: “What is a relationship?”
This series was an attempt to bring that question back.
1-chon was never just a button, it was an ancient way of humans designing relationships.
Even as platforms changed and technology evolved, its essence never changed.
We are still beings who contemplate:
This dilemma continues in the digital age.
SNS expanded relationships infinitely, but within it, we started to shrink again.
Amid all the noise, we searched for quiet voices, and within all the connections, we found one true connection.
And that connection was closer to a single “meaningful 1-chon” than thousands of followers.
The future returns to the starting point.
The era of making many relationships ends.
Now begins the era of choosing relationships.
We will once again:
Though the word 1-chon may have disappeared, its philosophy is still alive.
In fact, it is more alive now than ever.
We ask again: “Who will we open the door to?”
The process of answering this question is our relationship, our identity, and our life.
If this series has not just provided information, but offered a new perspective on relationships, that will be enough.
Not all connections we make need to be deep. But a single deep connection can change our world.
And that connection, once called 1-chon, now exists under various names, and in the future, will exist in our own unique ways.
No matter what name it takes, its essence will never change.
Relationships are not numbers, but meaning. Connections are not quantity, but depth. And depth always starts with choice.
May your next 1-chon be not a light click, but a meaningful choice.
The concept of 1-chon may be remembered by Koreans as originating from Cyworld, but its roots are much deeper, more global, and more complex.
In fact, the structure of 1-chon, 2-chon, and 3-chon is a concept that existed long before SNS, explaining human society itself.
Stanley Milgram’s “Small World Experiment” showed that we can reach anyone on Earth through an average of six degrees of acquaintances.
This experiment became the philosophical foundation of all SNS relationship systems.
Humans are connected in a network. These connections are based on hierarchical distances. 1-chon, 2-chon, 3-chon are merely “mappings of distance.”
Without this concept, SNS would not have existed.
This philosophy was culturally popularized through John Guare’s play Six Degrees of Separation in the 1990s.
SixDegrees was the “world’s first SNS based on degrees of separation.” It came four years before Cyworld.
All of these functions were already implemented in SixDegrees.
In other words, SixDegrees.com was the first to create the 1-chon system.
The problem was... the world was too fast.
The internet infrastructure, network usage behavior, and collective digital culture were not ready to embrace this concept. So SixDegrees became “a future that arrived too early.”
Friendster was the first global platform to popularize the “friend network” model used by today’s SNS.
The key was:
In effect, Friendster made the 1-chon structure a “mainstream user experience” in SNS.
And Facebook, in fact, inherited Friendster’s legacy.
I Love School was the first service to structure digital relationships in Korea, long before the term “SNS” even existed.
Although the term “1-chon” wasn’t used, it was the first attempt at a relationship-based social network in Korea.
And importantly, it came two years before Cyworld.
Cyworld was the first SNS in history to create the socio-cultural language of “1-chon.”
While Cyworld had predecessors like SixDegrees and Friendster, it was the platform that completed the cultural and linguistic concept of 1-chon.
The digital relationship language for Koreans was, in many ways, created by Cyworld.
✔ Facebook (2004)
Facebook used the term “Friends,”
but structurally, it was identical to Cyworld’s 1-chon.
In other words, Facebook reintroduced Cyworld’s concept in a global version.
✔ LinkedIn (2003~)
LinkedIn started earlier than Cyworld,
but it is the modern heir of the 1-chon, 2-chon, and 3-chon structure.
LinkedIn technically inherits and completes the relational philosophy of SixDegrees, Friendster, and Cyworld.
| Role | Platform | Year |
|---|---|---|
| Philosophical Origin | Milgram’s Small World Experiment | 1967 |
| Technical Origin | SixDegrees.com | 1997 |
| Popular Structuring | Friendster | 2002 |
| Korean Origin | I Love School | 1999 |
| Language & Culture Creation | Cyworld | 2001 |
| Global Expansion | 2004 | |
| Structural Completion | 2003~ |
This genealogy shows that the concept of 1-chon is not just a functional feature, but a context shaped by human relationships, philosophy, psychology, and technological advancement.
1-chon is not a mere feature of specific SNS platforms. It is a way of visualizing “the distance structure of human relationships” from SixDegrees to LinkedIn.
And this structure will continue to survive in the AI era, because humans inherently live by asking:
“How much access will we allow to whom?”
LinkedIn has never officially released quantitative data such as: “1st-degree connections have several times higher algorithmic exposure than 2nd and 3rd-degree connections.”
However, multiple studies and industry analysis reports show a consistent pattern:
Therefore, while precise numbers cannot be confirmed, it is clear that 1st-degree connections are “the most powerful group” in terms of algorithms and information access.
In fact, global users in their teens and 20s are generally unfamiliar with the term "1-chon." “1-chon? What’s that? We just follow each other or check if DMs are open.”
— 17-year-old TikTok user, USA
“For us, Instagram’s Close Friends is basically our real friends list.”
— 21-year-old college student, Japan
In Korea, due to the legacy of Cyworld, the term “1-chon” carries the cultural code of psychological intimacy. However, for users in the U.S. and Europe, a “1st-degree connection” is strictly a functional, work-related connection.
Example:
“LinkedIn’s 1st-degree connections are just professional access.”
— Startup marketer, Germany
| Generation | Relationship Definition | Concept Closest to "1-Chon" |
|---|---|---|
| X Generation (40-50s) | Based on offline intimacy | Cyworld 1-Chon / KakaoTalk Friends |
| Millennials (30s) | Based on platform features | Facebook Friends / LinkedIn 1-Chon |
| Z Generation (10-20s) | Emotion-based and selective exposure | Instagram Close Friends / Discord Private |