What's funny is that Khamenei has an account on Twitter and several news outlets from Iran have a presence on these same platforms that are banned in Iran, Pretty hypocritical if you ask me.
First of all and quite obviously the Supreme Leader himself does not post on that Twitter account, this task is assigned to people from his office.
Secondly, there's nothing hypocritical here since it's no less than a war, a media war we're talking about. Your contention is like saying "it's hypocritical to fight a war with weapons and tactics superior to those the enemy is equipped with".
More importantly, the media in question are inciting violence in Iran, something which happens to be perfectly illegal everywhere. Hence Iranian authorities have a duty to block these websites, as western authorities would if Iranian media had call for the murder of policemen in their countries. In fact, western regimes won't let it come to that, they will censor Iranian media under bogus pretexts, like they did for instance to Press TV on several occasions.
By the way, in response to an earlier statement suggesting that the likes of "Twitter" have a balanced approach to political views and offer everyone equal chances of expressing their views: as I noted back then, the only reason "Twitter" will allow some - far from all! - pro-Iranian voices to be present on their platform, is because they know those isolated few users stand absolutely no chance sinve their message will literally be drowned into oblivion by countless thousands of anti-IR bots, trolls, paid shills and so on.
This way, western-based "social media" create a fallacious illusion of impartiality, and fabricate a bogus "free speech" alibi for themselves. The minute dissident content remotely threatens to compromise the balance of dominant zio-American discourse, they will resort to brute censorship of the most aggressive kind, as witnessed oftentimes in the past.
Now to further support the point, let's focus again on the grey zone of public opinion, i.e. on those who do not have pre-determined convictions on this or that topic when they join a platform like "Twitter", through which they wish to inform themselves. This segment of the public is the one for whose favor opposed political camps compete primarily. Because people belonging to the group will form their opinion based on the content they come across on "social media" and unlike those with a fixed opinion following "Twitter" accounts in line with their views, the former group will not deliberately seek to enclose itself into an "opinion bubble" right from the outset.
So I proceeded to conduct a little experiment by putting myself in the shoes of these "initially neutral" readers, and clicking on the "hashtag" Islamic Republic on "Twitter". Then I examined the results in detail. After some 50 posts, I stopped reading: indeed, all of them without a single exception were from oppositionist, western or zionist accounts and were featuring rabid anti-IR propaganda. It's evident that any uninformed person seeking to know what took place in Iran in recent weeks and relying on "Twitter" to do so, will inevitably be drawn to and will adopt the propaganda narrative of the zio-American empire .
In conclusion, the notion that western-based "social media" offer equal opportunities to opposite parties expressing their views, and that they are but a mere reflection of public opinion at a given time, is a hoax and a piece of blatant untruth. What's happening is that these websites are acting as weapons in the hands of the zio-American empire to conduct its soft war, psy-ops and social engineering against political adversaries and brainwash audiences at home and abroad in line with their own interests.
Those who haven't quite grasped this yet ought to wake up: there's no such thing as proper "free speech" in the west. It's all mischievous sophistry carefully designed to impose the oppressive agenda of zionist / NATO regimes and the globalist oligarchy on the planet.