It doesn’t demonstrate that it is a monopoly nor that it is a harmful monopoly.
There are plenty of other highly profitable areas of business. They just usually take their earnings instead of investing them in new things.
Are you going to seriously argue that's the case? The companies that created the opioid crisis made a truckload of money off it. Health insurers make tons of money. For that matters, dealing illegal drugs is very very profitable and that's why crime syndicates are involved in it. So is selling weapons to the military, or generally involving yourself in foreign wars.
Thankfully Google, Facebook etc have not had the kind of negative impact the opioid crisis has, but there's a proven record of negative impacts like the whatsapp lynchings.
Profits alone do not indicate something evil. Evil things can be profitable, but the inverse is not necessarily true.
* Large profits don't make Google a monopoly * Large profits don't make Google evil
However, no one in this thread asserted otherwise. On the other hand, above you assert that large profits alone are enough to qualify Google as a "good business." It's very easy to come up with historical examples of businesses that made lots of money, but which no one would describe as "good."
Google is a monopoly, not because it makes lots of money, but because it is a monopoly. It captures the vast majority of internet search traffic.
I think you're actually making the argument for breaking up Google. Their search monopoly is so powerful and so profitable, that they can afford to just throw money away on hundreds of terrible side projects.