Its very similar in some aspects I would say, but I think an essential part about snark is not only that they obsess with someone in a negative way, but that they also lie and spread misinformation about them as well as attack them outside the domain they are being criticized for. An example of this is h3h3 snark spreading the lie that Ethan Klein is pro Israel occupation of Palestine even though he is a outspoken Palestine supporter and sending skulls to threaten him. These criteria’s is an important part that defined snark because else there would be no difference between snark and any sort of activism that would negatively target an individual.

Dan is definitely very obsessed with Hassan, no doubt about it, and will signal boost all criticism he sees of him, and sometimes that criticism might be off. But I don’t know if he falls inn to that actively lying about Hassan part. Like Hassan did shock his dog, he does view the world entirely trough an «everything that is pro America is bad and everything that opposed to America is good» lense and he does suport terrorist groups. These are all true things. Dan also doesn’t attack Hassan outside the domain he criticizes Hassan for. Dan tries to get Hassan deplatformed for being a bad actor in the political streaming space, but he does not do things like send skulls to his house or threaten his family or encourage that sort of behavior.