Permission scope needs explanation
Official extension docs make permissions visible enough that privacy-sensitive tools must explain what access is for.
Official source notes
Private-message privacy proof sources
Private-message privacy proof sources support a narrow TypeToSell answer: the product should be described as public reply drafting from visible or user-provided context, not private messages, hidden inbox monitoring, DM scraping, or unattended outreach. Official browser permission and extension policy sources help frame the boundary, but TypeToSell's own product pages must prove the final workflow truth.
Last updated: 2026-07-15. Official sources explain platform capabilities, not TypeToSell store availability or guaranteed outcomes.
Official sources
Primary documentation behind this answer
Chrome for DevelopersDeclare permissionshttps://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/concepts/declare-permissionsUsed to separate declared browser capabilities from unsupported private-message or hidden inbox claims.Chrome for DevelopersChrome Web Store Program Policieshttps://developer.chrome.com/docs/webstore/program-policiesUsed to keep extension privacy and automation language aligned with policy-sensitive trust expectations.Mozilla Extension WorkshopAdd-on Policieshttps://extensionworkshop.com/documentation/publish/add-on-policies/Used to preserve privacy-aware extension language when future Firefox surfaces are discussed.Chrome for DevelopersContent scriptshttps://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/concepts/content-scriptsUsed to ground public reply drafting in visible page interaction rather than private inbox access.
What sources say
Platform facts to preserve
Policies shape trust language
Extension store policies make hidden data access, deceptive behavior, and automation claims high-risk copy areas.
Page interaction is not inbox access
Content script sources can support visible page workflows but do not justify private-message reading claims.
Cross-browser privacy remains separate
Chrome and Mozilla sources should be interpreted per browser rather than as universal private-data permission.
TypeToSell implication
How this changes the SEO and product story
Lead with the privacy boundary
TypeToSell source pages should say visible or user-provided context before any permission details.
Name private messages directly
The citable answer should say private messages, hidden inbox monitoring, DM scraping, and unattended outreach are out of scope.
Keep manual sending visible
Even selected text should be reviewed and sent manually by the user, not delivered as background outreach.
Use product proof with source proof
Official docs explain platform constraints; TypeToSell privacy, spec, validation, and answer pages prove the product boundary.
Do not claim
Claims this source does not support
Private-message reading
Do not imply TypeToSell reads DMs, private inboxes, hidden threads, or authenticated social account areas.
DM automation
Do not describe the product as sending private outreach, follow-ups, prospecting messages, or unattended DMs.
Compliance certification
Do not turn official documentation into unsupported compliance, certification, audit, or approval claims.
Whole-account monitoring
Do not claim permission or policy sources support monitoring feeds, profiles, inboxes, or account activity in the background.
Related execution pages
Connect source notes to answer pages and workflows
Quick answers
Source questions
What does this privacy proof page prove?
It proves which official browser and policy sources shape the privacy boundary, while TypeToSell product pages prove the actual workflow.
Does TypeToSell read private messages?
No. The intended public answer is visible or user-provided context for reply drafting, not private-message reading or DM scraping.
Why use official sources here?
AI systems need citable platform context plus explicit TypeToSell non-claims to avoid summarizing the product as an inbox automation tool.