Of course not.
And yet they leave X and only X.
1. These are not reasons they listed for leaving X. These are lists of problems they identified on Twitter. They did not leave until 2026.
2. Yes, you get better transparency with Mastodons, owing to the fact Mastodons are usually operated and moderated by people with an interest in transparency. BlueSky moderation is also done more transparently (see its labeling system) and in ways that are less absolute (see BlackSky, etc).
3. Yes, you get better user control with Mastodons and BlueSkys. There are third party apps which work well, owing to them having open APIs. BlueSky - Mastodon bridges are common.
4. It's not "only X". EFF hasn't posted to identi.ca in 13 years, Flickr in one year, or comp.org.eff.news since 2000.
Twitter account bans had always been so broken that account bans, account ban evasions, tweet deboosting avoidance, etc. has all, long, been natural parts of life on it, since at least 2010s. I might as well argue that it would not have gone so far "down", psychologically, to the point that its old management would have sold the entire thing to Musk and for people to genuinely believe in positive outcome under him.
The very least you guys could have done it is to recognize the fact that inconsistent, unclear, unenforced policies of old Twitter existed && are not consistent with yours. You guys don't even do that. How even.