The circulation of knowledge in the scientific field has always been supported by an apparatus of publications capable of legitimizing its own production. The digital era has made this system more complex, not only in terms of incorporating policies such as the Open Access ones, but also through infrastructures that seek to produce, regulate and preserve knowledge. Bijker et al. (1987) and Bowker & Star (2000), among many others, have clearly explained how infrastructures usually start as a series of small and independent technologies with very varied technical standards to become dominant technological systems that take the form of networks that, after incorporating communities and practices, become invisible and their technological monopoly is naturalized.In the case of a scientific field such as the Digital Humanities, where the use of digital tools and resources are a key element for the construction of their epistemology, infrastructures become an essential support that also regulates their value. But do we have the same technological infrastructures in around the world? How does research is affected by the (non) existence of infrastructures that define a system where all those elements or devices for research activities are found?From a technopolitical perspective, this paper seeks to analyze the way in which the "big" infrastructures for the Digital Humanities (mainly, European) -DARIAH, CLARIN, HumaNum, among others- reveal forms of a political-technological rationality that work as an "apparatus of governmentality" (Foucault 2010) from the Global North, building a in an epistemological and technological monopoly that does not take into account the contexts and needs of researchers from different parts of the world. The intellectual impact of such asymmetry deserves close scrutiny, as it limits the scientific production. Can we talk about research in Digital Humanities in countries with obsolete infrastructures? Is the solution the simple use of infrastructures already developed in other countries or regions, or, on the contrary, should local solutions be thought of on a smaller scale and impact? What mechanisms should exist for not making invisible the scientific production of the Global South Digital Humanities that uses Global North infrastructures? Finally, and as part of this debate, where would these so-called (and for the moment non-existent) Global Digital Humanities reside if they are unequally produced and sustained?