I'd like to offer my own anecdote, as a completely secular person whose lifestyle would probably invite condemnation, if not horror, from e.g. LDS. I won't describe exactly why they might feel that way, but let it suffice to say that I have spent non-trivial time around people who have done what some call victimless crimes, among other and more legal behaviors.
I find that I feel better emotionally and perform better professionally (and academically, when I was in school) when I refrain completely from this vice. I also find that I have much less intrusive thoughts of the sexual variety, especially at inappropriate times about inappropriate people.
I understand your concern that pseudoscientific and/or religious groups might be exerting this influence. I just wanted to give an example of the opposite.
See these videos [0] [1] where people in the gaming community (which in my experience is very often agnostic, if not atheist) have essentially a group coaching session with a psychologist for their undesired relationships to porn. Very rarely do they mention religion, but quite often do they mention emotional distress, life difficulties, social struggles, and difficulty stopping a behavior they find distressing. Whether or not it's an "addiction" (and scientific discussions related to the debate) I find irrelevant -- they personally wish they could stop and have trouble doing so.
I appreciate your efforts to, as I perceive it, point out potential sources of bias or misinformation. I just wanted to offer a totally secular view of the benefit of and reason why an app like this might have funding and a market.
restriction might help all addictions. But, we need to start somewhere, and we have chosen this specific problem. we plan to launch solutions for compulsive usage of technology products in the coming months and years.
Didn't you take YC money? That sounds external and not bootstrapped to me. Unless they've changed the rules.
There is no addiction or compulsion unless the person is experiencing direct negative consequences to one's physical, mental, social, or financial well-being. I.E, no professional following a medical definition would touch a diagnosis of pornography compulsion unless there is clear documentation that the viewing has been causing negative consequences for the individual. Most likely they would not diagnose anything related to porn usage at all since neither the international standards nor World Health Organization recognize the diagnosis.
What a lot of people also try to imply is that all porn usage causes negative consequences. It is a bit like the prohibition tactic implying that any alcohol consumption causes alcoholism and significant bodily harm. Naturally we won't find a study saying there is no correlation between alcoholism and alcohol consumption, and some of the studies is likely to imply that consumption of alcohol may cause alcoholism. What the more insightful studies show is the risk factors that makes a person more likely to become addicted or get compulsions and what factors gives protection against it. The usual finding in such studies are environmental factors rather than simply consumption.
"Atmana" invokes imagery of "Atman"and "Mana" particularly for native english speakers; both words are highly connected to spiritual and/or philosophical concepts that most devout members of Abrahamic faiths are not going to be comfortable with.
One of the things few people know about the new "porn addiction" websites, including NoFap and "Fight the New Drug" is that there are connections between these groups and the LDS (ie Mormon) church.
It's less about "addiction" than creating a stigma around pornography use by wrapping it in pseudo-science.
While pornography can be addictive, there are other models than absence and restriction that are shown to help all addiction (not just pornography), and I'm wondering if you'd looked into them, or (frankly) if this is just another LSD-funded scheme to turn people off of the idea of porn.