Kripke's interpretation of Wittgenstein's rule following considerations is examined and rejected. Drawing on some of Wittgenstein's remarks in the private language argument, I suggest a new reading and clarify exactly what kind of "private" language Wittgenstein rejects in the private language argument. This account of rule following is then applied to show what is wrong with some brands of antiindividualism that have been defended by Putnam, Burge, and Gary Ebbs. It is argued that neither scientific realism, nor collectivist models of content ascription can do justice to, rule following and linguistic community.