I’m of two minds about Dire Claw.
On the one hand, I think the concept of banning it isn’t comparable to the concept of banning a move like Rage Fist or Stored Power or what have you. Smogon does not ban moves to nerf individual Pokémon; this is a pretty established precedent, which makes total sense because a Pokémon is always a combination of the entirety of their kit as opposed to just the move they learn. However, banning Dire Claw hasn’t been pushed to nerf Sneasler really, certainly not in the same way as other move bans get proposed. Pretty much any set that runs Dire Claw could easily swap out to Poison Jab and operate essentially exactly the same and even still have a nasty 51% poison chance limiting switchin opportunities just like Sneasler always does. Instead, I think that the reason Dire Claw is being pushed so hard for a ban by most people is that the move itself is just fundamentally not competitively designed. It’s one of two moves in the entire competitive environment that has a partial sleep chance, (since Secret Power can’t do that in link battles), the other being Relic Song. Unlike Relic Song however, it also has a massive chance to paralyze or poison, and the combination of those three statuses lead to an incredibly high variance button that essentially nothing in the game that isn’t steel-type can feel comfortable switching in on. Your chosen sleep absorber may get poisoned instead and all of a sudden you can’t use it to enable sleep clause and prevent something else from being put to sleep, meanwhile something you feel confident can take a poison gets paralyzed and has its speed halved, or your Guts Ursaluna gets put to sleep instead of poisoned… you get the picture. Sneasler may have Poison Touch, but all of these traits I listed prior are just inherent qualities of the move itself in a vacuum that just make it not conducive to a competitive environment, and any Pokémon that would want to run Poison Jab would gladly swap for it and cause problems with it.
In this way, I feel the concept of banning Dire Claw is in some regards more comparable to the King’s Rock ban of last gen. We all know that there was one primary abuser of King’s Rock: Cloyster. (Beat Up + Triple Axel Weavile could use it too and that was mostly the extent of it). Anything could run that item, but a 10% flinch chance wasn’t statistically worth giving up the item slot in almost any case. Cloyster on the other hand gained a massive a 41% flinch chance on Icicle Spear and Rock Blast, which combined with Shell Smash meant that one lucky flinch could turn a 2HKO into a full sweep. However, we didn’t ban Cloyster, we banned King’s Rock. Why? King’s Rock wasn’t deemed to add anything of value to the game while simultaneously making Cloyster higher variance in an uncompetitive way. Again, Cloyster was essentially the only Pokémon abusing this item, so even though the burden of proof was sort of AGAINST King’s Rock and in favor of banning Cloyster based on how we usually do tiering, the overwhelming majority favored banning the item, and that’s how things played out. Dire Claw is to Sneasler as King’s Rock was to Cloyster in the sense that all it adds to the game is a way to take a Pokémon that (potentially) isn’t problematic and introduce a high amount of game-swinging variance to it, not something that is making it too powerful to deal with conventionally.
…On the other hand, this doesn’t mean I’m not sympathetic to the argument that the burden of proof can’t technically be met to say this move is generally unhealthy if it’s a signature move. It’s also hard to draw a line between “nerfing” something in the sense of being unhealthily high-variance and “nerfing” something for being inherently too strong for a tier. For example, back in ORAS, Mega Pidgeot was banned from UU, and a major point of contention surrounding it was that its No Guard Hurricane could confuse 30% of the time, which back then still caused a 50% chance to hit oneself, leading to scenarios where you could be prepared to win against it and then just lose the game outright 15% of the time due to factors not in your control. Unhealthily high-variance Pokémon have been banned in the past, and what makes Sneasler unhealthily high variance is a move that is signature to it, making it even harder to establish the burden of proof that the move is the problem. It cannot be ignored that Sneasler is also just an inherently very strong Pokémon that is also perfectly situated to abusing the situations Dire Claw creates; while the move may be badly designed, there is merit to say that in theory not everything that actively uses Poison Jab would also be pushed over the edge by Dire Claw, and since there is no way to test this in a competitive environment, it does make it significantly easier to ban Sneasler as a whole rather than potentially challenge existing precedent.
TL;DR: Banning Dire Claw would be a lossless ban designed to curb unhealthy high variance in a single Pokémon, which has precedent in Sword and Sheild’s King’s Rock ban, but it also is a signature move of an already strong Pokémon, which inherently makes it hard to establish that the move is the problem and not the fact that Sneasler is perfectly designed to abuse it. I think that there is merit to both sides of the argument, and that a move ban should not be dismissed outright even if it does get rejected in the end in favor of precedent.