arbitrariness of arbitrary not?

Am collecting stuff to translate icelandic, japanese and brazilian portugese into one another.. Talking about this, a person asked a seemingly obvious question:
why these languages?
Now, I have certain reasons which seem to have been fine for that particular conversation.
However:
Am I sure these are reasons rather than dressed up excuses?
Am I sure these reasons, or elements I can reason about have not come about to my mind in a sort of arbitrary fashion?
Or indeed, why reasons can not in and of themselves be, in fact, arbitrary..?

The question of being arbitrary is interesting for me because power allows arbitrariness. I decide this line should have a Z all on its own – because I have the power and it seems, in this case, to link to nothing else but itself. However, if I said that the Reason I decided Z rather than A, a letter right above it in the keyboard, is that Z is a rare letter to type, then, I think, the question of arbitrary use of my power would have been that of why Z among other rare letters in english. That probably be the discursive course because it seems legitimate to link an attempt of highlighting a single letter in a line, with that letter’s likelyhood to be in any other word. However, the arbitrary use of power is when it comes to why Z and not, errr, X? If either are fine, why did I not write Z/X? If I did, would I be able to discuss the question of the arbitrary Z in the way I just did?

This last point, it seems like possibly linking with the use, abuse and legitimacy of arbitrariness. When is it cool to be arbitrary? Can it be argued that being arbitrary is always uncool? What is the difference between arbitrary stuff and arbitrary culture? (Is there a difference..?) Perhaps arbitrariness is a question of multiple linking? (eg being able to get linked from multiple directions, despite an initial arbitrary decision? Perhaps its that and being viral, unimposed.. Sort of there but dead until conditions/links open up?)

spectating spectaclular spectrum?

Seems like spectating is very much linked or linkedAble to spectrum via spectre and in my mind spectacularly so..

Scope, as a sort of Wave-extent, is more the kind of vibrations I have in mind re spectrum – seemingly wrongly..

Perhaps even more so, the german word spähen “to spy”. Sense of “distance the mind can reach..”
This sounds to me more like an innate searchness of a wave.. As in wave as a spy/searching-rhythms that seem to have aim via aimless other energies.. They are just linked, not aimed.. Hence full of energy..? (not power.. power requires aim/meaning..)

fugoo and the duck of going to ddk from google

I have been using ddk – duckduckgo – for a fair few years now.
fugoo – is the verb for fuck-google and using other tools. (these are mostly tools, not services as people like to call them, because owned by few and for profit. Software, a tool, As a service = a n attempt to wrap the tool as a service it ain’t.. Anyhow, this is a diversion..)

Many, or a fair few people ditch google for other tools currently, specially following the looooooooooooooong over due realisation that googling is helping (other people get economic power) via spying on you. Not many people are masochistic in that way, I guess.
Interesting, in my mind that the fact people have been working for nothing – slaving – to the pleasures of google and other such corporations, seems fine.. Is this because the very slaves would have switched places had they’ve been given the chance?

Well.. I recall when it was late 90’s and google’s early days. The long into the night discussions laced with smoke and alcohol, of the perils for using google, the perils of googlising your life, and people say: well, this is a different kind of business, a new kind of economy, distributed by nature on the network – hence google will not be evil. (..and then came the evil microsoft rant..)

So when, for example, people fugoo for duck duck go, I get a bit of a deja vu. I know the guy that developed ddk is very nice, affable, intelligent and friendly with fab intentions. However, he is also Human, and we Humans do not deal with power very affably, intelligently, friendly and well intended. Just like any kind of drug interactions in our bodies, power makes us do stuff that otherwise – we wouldn’t have.
Since we live within power based culture that all too often cultivates its arbitrary power positions for distribution of means and wealth – we not know any other way but of power.
Therefore, as long as we do cultivate power – rather than, for example, raw energy – the powerful need to be in check. Thats is why we are developing democratic practices for.. No?