>they've been busted dozens of times for changing a claim
You keep repeating this claim over and over without any evidence whatsoever that this is happening. Even the cases you've posted have no indication that anything was changed to re-frame a result and yet you keep arguing that they're selectively choosing the question and, on top of that, all of them include an image of the original claim, irrespective of what they chose as the title of their page.
>If only Snopes didn't ask archive. org to scrub the entire site.
As with almost all of your other claims, a citation or source is needed.
Edit: On top of that, there are several other archive sites that do, in fact, have Snopes articles linked. So, you tell me... why would Snopes "go after" one archive site and not another?
Most articles aren't archived or have also been scrubbed. Or only have a single recent version archived. For instance archive.is has entries for maybe 2000 out of the 10s of thousands Snopes articles. Of those, less than 5% have multiple archived versions.
This isn't exactly the type of site I'd usually reference, but this woman recorded quite a few page delta's about gmo food and Monsanto, and the Snopes pages getting edited after large ad buys by the company.
You keep repeating this claim over and over without any evidence whatsoever that this is happening. Even the cases you've posted have no indication that anything was changed to re-frame a result and yet you keep arguing that they're selectively choosing the question and, on top of that, all of them include an image of the original claim, irrespective of what they chose as the title of their page.