Address compliance issues with [YouTube] API Services Terms and Policies

[PyvesB]

As part of #6276, I've submitted a request to increase our API quota for YouTube badges. As a response, they've raised three concerns about potential violations of the YouTube terms and services:

• they are unsure whether we're using one or multiple Google projects IDs for our API client. We're only using one, so I'll confirm that with them. This point should be resolved easily.

• they asked us to display a link to their Terms of Service:

  API Clients must display a link to YouTube's Terms of Service (https://www.youtube.com/t/terms), and they must also state in their own terms of use that, by using those API Clients, users are agreeing to be bound by the YouTube Terms of Service.

  This seems like a fair thing to ask for, so I've done so in the documentation of all four badges.

• they reckon that the "YouTube Video Votes" badge (and only that one) violates the following:

  API Clients must clearly indicate how user-provided data will be used on YouTube

  You're probably confused at this point, they do clarify things a little, the problem is that we've apparently changed the labels for Likes and Dislikes. Despite being exactly what they use in their own UI, 👍 and 👎 are not actually the labels. Consequently, I've phased out the "Votes" word and clarified in the documentation what 👍 and 👎 map to in the YouTube label world.

  They give an example of non compliant behaviour in their Terms of Service: an API Client with a text box called "feedback" which would end up posting a comment on YouTube without that being clear to the user. This makes perfect sense, but it really doesn't seem relevant to the Shields.io case. In my opinion, they are taking things a little too far and I don't really agree with their interpretation of the ToS, but the proposed changes will hopefully resolve this issue.

[shields-ci]

	Messages
📖	✨ Thanks for your contribution to Shields, @PyvesB!

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 020b6a1

[calebcartwright]

This makes perfect sense, but it really doesn't seem relevant to the Shields.io case. In my opinion, they are taking things a little too far and I don't really agree with their interpretation of the ToS, but the proposed changes will hopefully resolve this issue

I agree (assuming I'm following things correctly 😅) I could see this being applicable if the badge were like our Twitter followers badge where clicking the badge could result in an action because the embedded badge links to the platform in that way. Here the click just opens the video.

That being said, also agree it's easier to just make the changes; don't think this ends up being detrimental to the badges or anything

[PyvesB]

Thanks for reviewing promptly. I've deployed these changes to production and followed up with YouTube, hopefully they'll increase our API quota soon and I'll be able to close #6276. :)