What is the current response to Kripke’s Wittgenstein am I missing?

Kripke’s Wittgenstein famously states that rules *can’t* be followed, ‘all’ there is to following a rule is the shared consensus of groups of people. Therefore, when ‘following’ a rule I *never* actually follow a rule but rather *choose* to observe a common social convention.<br><br>I’m familiar with criticisms of Kripke’s Wittgenstein from:<br><br>1. Korsgaard on the role of interpretation in understanding rules<br><br>2. Diamond *the realistic spirit* and *inheriting wittgenstein* on whether Kripke accurately interprets Wittgenstein and on Kripke forcing a dichotomy of private language and shared consensus when that dichotomy is not possible since all language is shared<br><br>3. McDowell trying to tell us that our following rules isn’t just based on social norms but on an interpretation of the world in the context of the common meaning we give to words<br><br>All these criticisms are old, does anyone know of recent (from 2010 onwards) criticisms of Kripke’s Wittgenstein?