Funding other projects within your business, using your primary source of revenue, does not automatically qualify as abuse of monopoly. That's a non-informed opinion if I've ever heard one.

1) Google has never been legally shown to have a monopoly by any of the relevant anti-trust entities, whether in the US / Europe / Asia.

2) To claim a harmful monopoly, you have to show that consumers have been harmed. That has not been done either. This alone invalidates everything you said.

3) Funding self-driving car projects, google glass, maps, etc. is a hilarious example of consumers being harmed. Google hardly makes money with maps, yet they continue to produce a free-to-use, outstanding product. I can't think of a greater win for consumers than that. There is no consumer harm occurring.

Your last claim is wrong and has zero basis in actual anti-trust law. Funding or subsidizing other businesses with a market dominant business, DOES NOT inherently constitute abuse of monopoly. If you were right, Intel would never be allowed to invest into any other business; Cisco would never be allowed to invest into any other business; Microsoft would never be allowed to invest into any other business; eBay would never be allowed to invest into another business; and so on. You are not right of course.

No - well, not in the way your parent meant. It's abuse if you're using the fact that it's a monopoly to benefit your other areas. It's not abuse if one division of a company makes enough profit to subsidize other areas, that's just a way companies manage budgets and is unrelated to whether they have a monopoly or not.