The “White Internet” Controversy: How a New X/Twitter Update Exposed Iran’s Unequal Internet System and Ignited Public Backlash
A new update on the X platform has triggered a nationwide controversy in Iran by displaying the country of connection for each user, fueling accusations of "white internet" use.
A new update on the X platform has triggered a nationwide controversy in Iran by displaying the country of connection for each user—fueling accusations that certain political figures, influencers, and public personalities are using “white internet” or uncensored SIM cards while millions of ordinary citizens continue to face harsh filtering and digital restrictions. This incident has reopened the debate on Iran’s emerging dual-tier “class-based internet,” sparking widespread anger, mockery, and political tension across Persian social media.
The uproar began when users noticed that many political figures were listed as connecting directly from Iran, despite the fact that major platforms like X (formerly Twitter) are blocked and require VPNs to access. Many Iranian users argued that if someone were truly using a VPN, their country label should reflect the VPN server’s location—not Iran—leading to the widespread assumption that these individuals must be using white internet SIM cards.
White internet (or “white SIM”) refers to unfiltered mobile lines that bypass national filtering systems, granting access to blocked platforms such as X, Instagram, Telegram, WhatsApp, and global app stores without any limitation. These SIM cards are not publicly available and are typically issued to government officials, security institutions, high-ranking bureaucrats, select journalists, foreign visitors, and technical personnel requiring global connectivity. The existence of this privileged internet infrastructure—which allows unrestricted access for a small elite—has long been a source of public anger, but the latest X update made the inequality visible in real time and to a much wider audience.
Over the past 48 hours, numerous Iranian users attacked public figures whose profiles displayed “Connected from Iran,” accusing them of hypocrisy, elitism, and benefiting from a restricted internet system that ordinary people cannot access. Targets included current and former members of parliament, such as Rasoul Rashidi-Koochi and Amirhossein Sabeti, who have publicly spoken against privileges and inequality. Users wrote that those who defend filtering publicly seem to enjoy uncensored internet privately, calling it a clear example of “do as I say, not as I do.”
However, as the controversy grew, many other users posted screenshots showing that despite using VPNs, their own X profiles also appeared as connected from Iran. This introduced technical uncertainty into the debate: it remains unclear whether X’s new labeling system accurately reflects the country of connection, or whether it sometimes displays the user’s SIM-registered country regardless of VPN usage. Some network analysts argue that depending on X’s detection protocol, certain VPN configurations may still reveal the original country. Others suggest that X’s rollout of this feature may be inconsistent or malfunctioning for users in heavily filtered environments.
Despite these technical ambiguities, the political and social message resonated widely. The explosive reaction across Persian social media reflects a deeper frustration: Iranians live under one of the world’s most restrictive internet regimes, forcing them to rely on unstable VPNs, blocked platforms, throttled speeds, and continuous risks of surveillance—while a privileged minority enjoys fast, unfiltered connectivity.
This anger is magnified by the memory of government promises. During the presidential campaign, Masoud Pezeshkian repeatedly promised to ease digital restrictions, and his administration has so far only delivered partial unblocking of WhatsApp and Google Play. Broader reforms remain stalled, while filtering of major platforms—Instagram, X, Telegram, YouTube, Discord, and others—continues to dominate the digital landscape.
The sudden visibility of who is “connected from Iran” on X has therefore functioned as a political flashpoint. It highlighted the existence of a two-tier internet system: one for officials, institutions, and select groups with white internet access, and one for the rest of the population, who must navigate censorship, degraded performance, and constant uncertainty.
This incident underscores a broader truth: the debate over white internet is not just technical—it is deeply political and symbolic. It reflects the public’s accumulated anger over digital inequality, government control, and the widening gap between the lives of citizens and the privileges enjoyed by state-connected actors. The “white internet” controversy is therefore more than a disagreement over VPN detection; it is a window into a society struggling with censorship, unequal access to information, and a growing sense that digital rights have become another form of social and political discrimination.
Unless transparent policies, universal access frameworks, and meaningful reforms are implemented, such controversies will continue to erupt—because what is at stake is not a label on X, but the right of millions of Iranians to participate in the global digital world on equal terms.